it's a great, it was great to tour noaa's center for weather and climate prediction and to meet our team of experts. i'm pleased, this is my first of several stops to commerce department facilities in the region. it's a particular honor to be here with chairwoman mikulski, someone who i deeply admire for her longstanding service to congress. the people of maryland, indeed, are very fortunate to have you representing them in washington. the name of this facility says it all, predicting the weather and climate is essential to protect lives and property. and to strengthen our country. every day noaa and the national weather service scientists and meteorologists analyze billions of pieces of data. finish they issue highly-accurate forecasts that are essential information for each of us and for our businesses. be we use this information

throughout our day to plan our vacations, to keep our families out of harm's way. make no mistake, this center saves lives. as well, these forecasts help our businesses continue to operate and move goods smoothly, as smoothly as possible throughout the supply chain of america. and these forecasts also help americans who work in sectors like real estate development as helping them choose where to place a new office building, a new industrial facility, a new property like this. so the work that happens here is also crucial to keeping our economy going. the center is also an important hub of innovation. entrepreneurs and business leaders come here to discover the potential for new products and technology. we need their partnership as we work to build a weather-ready nation. the partnership with the university of maryland is also

crucial. when the federal government builds a state-of-the-art facility on a campus like this, we have a responsibility to maximize its potential. so we want to see many more collaborations between noaa employees and faculty here at this university. also we want to see more students come here for an education, hands-on training, internships and more. we want to spark their or imaginations. we want the give them skills to succeed in their career. we want to plant the seed that public service at a place like noaa could be part of their future. clearly, we need to help in the coming years and decades not just for day-to-day forecasting, but also we monitor and predict climate changes, another part of what noaa does. president obama emphasized climate change haas week in a major -- last week in a major speech. slowing the effects of climate

change is crucial to insuring a bright, healthy future for the next generation. as the president said, we need an all-of-the-above approach to energy coupled with steady, responsible steps to cut carbon pollution. part of the solution is for both the public and the private sectors to continue developing breakthroughs in areas like clean energy. these breakthroughs will have an added benefit of helping us outcompete and outinnovate the rest of the world in the energy sector. we also need to do on-the-ground work to help communities as they confront the effects of climate change, many of which are already evident in some of our major coastal areas. noaa is at the forefront of helping these communities become more resilient for the long term. we're providing tools and expertise to help them prepare for and respond to issues like drought, sea level rise, flooding and more.

we must all be working together to insure a healthy planet and provide a bright future for our children. it's clear that our president understands all of this and, of course, leaders like chairwoman mikulski understand it too. she understands that our environment, our way of life and our overall prosperity are increasingly tied together. she knows why noaa's work here at college park is so important to the people of maryland and, in fact, to all americans. again, it's an honor to be here with you today, chairwoman mikulski. i will turn the podium over to you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i need my little stool here. high-tech events require a low-tech stool. [laughter] good morning, everybody. i'm delighted to be here at the weather forecasting center where maryland is the epicenter for broadcasting weather forecasts to the nation and to the world.

it is here at this facility that we gather the information, process the information and send it out to the world. right now, this very minute, in maryland there are tracking devices for satellites, our eyes in the sky, that are looking out over our weather both in our own country and in the world, shooting that, gathering that data there and shooting it over here to this wonderful campus where we are processing the data through our computer network, our talented people using the best science and mathematical models and then getting it out to 122 weather forecast offices and to public -- and to media at local radio and tv stations and, of course, to the weather

channel, one of the post-watched channelmost-watched channels in america. we are so excited that maryland is the epicenter to be able to do that. because we feel that one of the most important jobs that your government can do is help people save lives and save property. that is why we need accurate weather forecasts. now, i was here as the senator from maryland during the sandy, during the great hurricane sandy coming. as it moved up the area and i looked at the computers, saw people working 24/7 to give governors, ordinary is zs, daycare moms and so on the best information. while governor christie and governor o'malley were mesmerized how to deploy and what to do in order to protect their people, we were watching this. but as we looked at the computers, we saw that there

were two different models. there was the american model coming out of here, and there was the european model where the european model said pretty much we were going in the same direction until we reached a critical point. and what we saw was that the european model was faster, had more accuracy in hindsight than ours. well, i went back to congress, and as i was working on the urgent supplemental, the money to put the federal money into the federal checkbook to deal with the ravages of hurricane sandy, to make sure that we could work with our governors whether up and down the east coast, i said you know what? we love the europeans. they're great nato allies. but i'll be darned if they're going to have a better weather model than the united states of america. and i rallied my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to put money in

the federal checkbook to come up with the computational capacity to have a new american model that will be the fasters, the most -- fastest, the most accurate, the most -- have the greatest resolution of any facility in the world. we might have a race with the europeans, and we welcome that. if we race for in to olympics, we're in the olympics of the weather. but we are going to have for our american people to do that working again on a bipartisan basis. we came up with over $50 million as a significant down payment to bring the supercomputer model that will be right here doing the job it needs. as the satellite information comes in where we have the right science, we're going to have a computer that really then enables us to be able to tell our citizens and even predict to the world what that is.

i thought that was a phenomenal accomplishment. so as we're rebuilding america after particularly our east coast after hurricane sandy whether it's somerset county or garrett county, whether it's the beaches of the new jersey shore, whether it's ocean city, new jersey, or ocean city, maryland, we're all americans together. we're all americans together that need the best weather. so whether you're along the east coast or the mississippi or missouri river, whether you're in new orleans wondering what's going to happen to you, whether we're looking at the kind of models about the terrible fires in arizona -- and our hearts go out to the grief that they're facing there today -- we need to have the best protections. so i chair the appropriations committee. that puts money in the federal checkbook. and i believe that america governs best when we can do it bipartisan. i got bipartisan support to

that, and we are actually putting money in the federal checkbook to make the down payment and the supplemental. and next -- two weeks from now i will be moving the federal budget for the weather service, and i can assure you we are going to make every effort in a well-planned, well-paced way to modernize our capacity to be able to have the best computer prediction models with the best work force. and we will do all that we can to prevent another sequester to be able to do that. this is what we feel we need to be able to defend america whether you're protecting storms -- you're predicting storms, whether you're predicting the year's anniversary of this, but most of all saving lives and saving livelihoods. for what we can offer in predictions, we can enable people to plan if they see the storms coming in their direction.

they will, businesses will be able to plan, governor withs will be able to plan what they need to be able to do. you know, america's commerce depends on good weather. good weather predictions. so if you are ships at sea, you need to know the weather. if you're air, if you're deploying your aircraft and you're the private sector, how many of you have been grounded because of the weather? you need to be able to predict -- should you even go the airport at all? but really, america's commerce and america's functioning depends on the weather. and what is so great about our country is that it's not -- the noaa service is government owned and operated. but what we are able to do is how we communicate with the american people. and we have one of the greatest ways of doing that. we work with the private sector. local radio stations, local tv stations and the weather channel. when people watch the weather channel, they're getting their

information from noaa. and also he'd like to introduce now one of the really great people, byron norcross, from the weather channel. he is a fantastic hurricane specialist. and, brian, as you come up here, i want to thank secretary pritzker on her first appearance, her first public appearance as secretary of commerce to come here to noaa. because she knows that it is weather and weather predictions, accurate forecasts that enable the functioning, the good planning for the commerce to continue. whether it's internationally, whether it's nationally and locally. and also dr. kathy sullivan, our noaa administrator. and, of course, there is the charismatic person who runs this, who runs this, the intrepid, unflappable,

unwavering dr. uccelini. the doctor has devoted almost 30 years to the weather service. he's won every award that he can get. he doesn't seek awards. what he seeks is to make sure we can make the right predictions at the right time to save lives and livelihoods. i'd like to give the a-team a round of applause and bring brian up to give us the weather channel perspective. [applause] you don't need my stool, brian. >> no, i think i'm good. [laughter] senator, thank you very much and thank you, louie and secretary, administrator sullivan, for having us here and having me here today. on behalf of the weather channel, it was just wonderful to see this magnificent facility. this really is the center of the fundamental and foundational role that noaa plays in the national forecast and warning business. eighteen years ago i testified

before the senate governmental affairs committee -- yes, 18 years ago and beyond some of us were in the weather business, louie -- and continue today. the discussion a at the time was about characterizing noaa's role in the public/private partnership that is the american weather system, a system that's providing, of course, increasingly accurate forecasts and better warnings to keep americans safe against severe and extreme weather. i said in that testimony -- and it's even more true today -- that noaa's satellites, radar, data and the professionals that work in this building, the dedicated people, they're the foundation of the entire weather enterprise. the public, private and academic part. without this operation here and around the country, everything that we do would not be possible. without noaa and the national weather service, the weather channel, private enterprise and the researchers would not be

able to add value to this work and would not be able to customize and to create the products that we do to do business in the weather business. in a warming world of extreme weather, noaa's mission to protect life and property, to enhance the national economy, that is the stated mission of noaa becomes even more critical, of course, and the partnership with the weather channel and ore private businesses -- other private businesses in the weather industry and the academic community all come together to build the most robust weather system in the world. and if we're going to continue to do this, we need a strong noaa, and we need a strong private industry. so that together we can meet the challenges of a changing world as we're going to unravel and communicate to the american public what they need to know so that we can be a weather-ready and a climate-ready nation. thank you on behalf of the weather channel. it's a pleasure to be here. dr. sullivan? >> thank you, bryan, very much,

for giving us a per perspective on the private side of the public/private partnership. i would just add a quick count we did here this morning, there are something north of separate private sector entities that comprise a multibillion dollar private weather enterprise that complements the public investment and public activity that bryan and the secretary and the senator have noted today. the partnerships that noaa has with those private is sector institutions and our academic colleagues such as here at the university of maryland, they are absolutely essential to support the fundamental goal that we all share which, as we have all said and can never be emphasized too much, it is about protecting lives and livelihoods. it's about keeping this company -- this country healthy, whole and functioning. and doing that in an environment where the data are telling us the frequency of weather extremes is increasing, the severity of the events coming our way is increasing. the mission has never been as important as it is today, and

it's just grown through the years. as the acting administrator of noaa, i wallet to salute the steadfast -- i want to salute the steadfast dedication of the people who work in this building. national weather service, national ocean service, our satellite service all co-located here so they can blend their expertise and the strands of work they each contribute to this great forecasting intersurprise seamlessly -- enterprise seamlessly to deliver the absolute best in environmental intelligence. as the senator puts it, the news you can use in a timely, accurate and reliable fashion. our ability to do this starts with the expertise in this building, but it would also not be possible without the leadership of secretaries of commerce and the steadfast support that we have had from many allies in the congress, most notely the fine senator standing immediately to my right. senator, i thank you for your steadfast, long-running advocacy and most particularly for yourport and your leadership --

your support and your leadership in rallying the effort that provided the supplemental funds following hurricane sandy. of course, extreme weather and the effects of climate are equal opportunity hazards. they endanger every congressional district, and we've had very vivid reminders of that these past few days and weeks. while the western half of the country deals with record-breaking heat and wildfires, our eastern, many eastern states are facing severe flooding even today. and we still face threats from tornadoes in boston no less. so families and communities everywhere in this land, the country that has the greatest array, variety and severity of weather events on any country on this earth need to take steps now to insure they're weather-ready no matter where they live. last week as secretary pritzker mentioned, the president announced an all-encompassing approach to addressing climate change. noaa's environmental intelligence will play key roles in this endeavor as well. this week, in fact, we released a new product to provide people

with information about drought. this is a data product that will allow the private sector more up-to-date information about the status of the drought and help them better inform their planting decisions and the water management decisions that state and local government officials are facing. these are the kind of data and the kind of information that is at the heart of noaa's mission used across a wide range of governmental entities and private sec for companies all to help us live wisely and well on this very dynamic planet. as bryon has alluded to, when it comes to weather and climate, noaa is the foundation on which our entire country's enterprise stands, and the enterprise can only be as healthy as the foundation is strong. the country needs us, and our private sector and academic partners count on us to always bring our a game, and that's what we aim to do. thank you all for being with us here today. we'll have a few moments, i believe, to take your questions. it's been an honor having you with us. >> great. >> we have time for a few

questions. i will -- please, raise your hand, and i will call on you, and please state your name and affiliate. jason? >> jason -- [inaudible] washington post. thank you all for your comments today and for coming here and it's been delightful to aerofrom everyone. of course, the sandy supplemental, the infusion of funds to increase the capacity of supercomputers, that's great news, that's fantastic for the weather enterprise and weather prediction, yet at the same time we have a noaa-wide hiring freed, we have weather service employees who aren't able to travel to professional meetings to present their work, to collaborate with others in the field. you have weather service offices which are severely short staffed who can't hire forecasters, who are shutting down programs like the local sterling office to bridge the gap between weather forecasts and decision making their weather-ready nation

program. so my question is to either senator mikulski or secretary pritzker. how can we successfully modernize the weather service work force and make progress when the weather service can't hire folks, when employees can't travel and so forth? so well your response. thank you. welcome your response. thank you. >> i think that's an excellent question, and that deals with sequester. as long as we have sequester, there will be these tight builds on the personnel activities at noaa. and as you know, we were able to ward off furlough days for noaa. i think that the real solution is for there to be a bipartisan effort to cancel sequester. that means both the house and the senate have to come together. i am deeply disturbed the way

the sequester will be canceled is through the work of the budget committee working with the president and the leadership of both houses on a bargain. however, right now four republicans in the united states senate prevent the budget committee from meeting in a conference. in april 29th we passed the budget committee, it passed with over 70 senators voting. we came up with a framework for the budget to send over and go to conference. so i would say free the budget committee so they can go forth and do their job. and while they're doing their job to work with the president to come up with a bargain to cancel is sequester. for my part as an appropriator that funds the commerce department, we will be moving our appropriations through a regular and orderly process. we will be bringing this to the full committee the week of july

15th, and we hope then to have a framework for 2014 at the top line which is a trillion, but we will have the allocation that will look at some of the other things that we need to modernize within the commerce department. and one of which is the top will be worth. but we must -- will be weather. but we must take the steps to cancel sequester. and though it is not -- sequester is not as visible as a government shutdown or a slamdown or a lockdown. that's when, stops. but -- when everything stops. but we are kind of bleeding here, and i think it has a terrible effect on morale, and i think it has an effect on management is that they could be putting their energies and their executive, creative and executive abilities into moving their missions forward rather than managing a crisis that was

created by congress and our inability to do our job. so i think we ought to free noaa to do its job by us concentrating on doing ours and coming up with a bargain. >> [inaudible] >> yes. charlie clark, government executive. is there any specific opponents of the higher funding among the republicans, or is it more an issue of the across-the-board cut? >> there is not one person that's got noaa on a hit list, but there is the ongoing tension between an austerity-only framework or the approach that many of us have, the pragmatists, which is the balance between us aer the the i and -- austerity and a pro-growth. and what we see in an agency like noaa is its deep involvement in the private seven to sector whether it'swet forecasts

or -- weather forecasts or whether it's working in terms of furblies and other -- fisheries and other kinds of things in terms of dealing with it. so that's the fundamental issue. and i think a european model other than weather forecasting was the austerity-only approach, and we saw that that hasn't really worked. it hasn't -- though it's worked to, you know, bring down their even imf says that. so we are really supporting president obama's framework which is to find a balanced approach, a strategic cuts, increased revenues particularly looking at a lavish tax earmarks and subsidies, and then a scrutiny of the mandatory spending. >> [inaudible] >> stephanie -- [inaudible] climate wire. i cover climate science, and one of the things in noaa's budget, i've noticed some of the climate sensors got shifted over to nasa for the satellites and also noticed in the sandy

supplemental the cosmic ii funding was denied. so i was wondering if you could speak about the prioritization of weather versus climate in this kind of weather we're seeing right now. >> well, the effort to fund the cosmic has to be made more clear. we found that the air force budget numbers were, needed a greater review and suitny. so we were -- scrutiny. so we were hesitant to commit to a new program rather than keeping the existing program on track. and then in terms of the climating, this was an issue on how we could make sure the jpss actually came into fruition. that was another flawed decision to be involved with the air force. i think noaa needs its own satellites. they're civilian satellites, and we've got that now on track. thanks to the work of the predecessor. so we're not trying to

shortchange climate, but what was happening with the original jpss where we were involved with the air force, it was eating 60% of the noaa budget, so we were heading for catastrophe. so we'll wait on the cosmic, again, because we want better and more accurate information from the weather -- from the air force. we want that to be as good as our weather forecasts. we need fiscal forecasts as accurate as our weather forecasts. >> got time for one more question in the back. >> any questions for our scientists and our weather people? you've got the weather channel here? [laughter] >> hi, i'm margaret -- [inaudible] from cnn. so with all this in prediction and preparing for this weather, what are we going to do to improve reaction to, for what severe weather events, especially in light of the recent arizona tragedy? has there been any thought given to establishing a national fire fighting service that would be available for rapid response for these sort of severe weather events that we're preparing for? >> i'm sorry, i don't understand the question. >> so are we, is there anything

we can, you know, look to do? what can we do once we have this established situation? we're working to improve the way in which we're predicting the weather, so how can we turn it around to react to the severe weather events and improve them. >> yes, would you -- >> we do, what we do currently is once a fire fighting command post is set up and established, they make -- take a quick assessment of their situation, and they request what we call an incident meteorologist. so we have imets embedded at most of the major fire scenes you're probably tracking in the western states now. we don't go preemptively, we wait until they take stock and call us in. in the case of the yarnel l fire, the fire started friday night by lightning, by saturday it was a small hundred acres, it really exploded with the weather conditions on sunday. they were just getting set up.

they have subsequently requested an imet, so we are embedded with them, and we provide the sort of spot forecast. it is not to be overly speculative, but pip typically we would have our imet embedded with the kind of hotshot crew that was overrun by the fire on sunday, and that kind of extremely rapid wind shift that turned the fire against them, that's just the kind of impending hazard, rapid, fast-moving hazard that the imets try to protect the firefighters from. so we would have been there, maybe we could have contributed to a better outcome. >> you were asking if we should have a national weather response. they wouldn't have been there. fire fighting is local. you need to have firefighters on the ground who know the terrain, who know the geography, who know every rock and cranny.

so they know that. so that in order to have a national fire service like a s.w.a.t. team, is that what you're asking? >> [inaudible] >> no. i think what we could, first of all, let's acknowledge this is really a sad day. i think all of america's grieving because firefighters, though they're local, there's a universal, national culture around our first responders, and we so admire them and so appreciate them, and our hearts go out for their families. and what we need to be able to do is be able to work together so that we can have the best information available. right now the best information would be to have a weather person on site which now they have to call for. and we hope that there'll be technological breakthroughs to do that. but national s.w.a.t. teams are not the answer. what we need is a national effort. and right now we're going to have a national grief which is very sad.

>> just call their -- [inaudible] >> they call, we assign them out from the local nearby weather forecast office, so the weather forecaster brings the same local knowledge that the senator was referring to, and that's the kind of tuned to the circumstance insight that i think you need. it's a flexible matrix system that i think works very well but was late in this case. not on scene. >> bryon? did you want to say something? about it? >> i mean, as a weather forecaster, you know, all weather is local, and when you really get down to it, you have the science that comes out of this building here, and you have the science that comes nationally, and you have warnings and so forth, but when you get down to detailed weather forecasts, you need local information to make the best forecasts. that's just part of weather forecasting now and, i think, for the foreseeable future. >> i'll make a comment here too. you know, with the focus on the fires as it should be right now

because we still, i mean, the fires are still raging out in the west, the more general issue here is how are our decision makers going to use the information we can provide. and that's a major step forward we're taking with the weather ready nation initiative. one of the things i learned when i came in from the research community almost 30 years ago now is that we don't, our jobs don't end with the forecast. we are now providing information that's actionable which means we have to learn how to work with decision makers, decision makers have to learn how to use our information. and that's an effort that we're really stepping up as part of this initiative. and it applies to the severe weather outbreaks, fire weather, the hurricanes, coastal -- people still --

[inaudible] we have a lot of work to do and folks who have to work with and that act on it also have a lot of work to do. so we're working in partnership in that area. >> thank you to our speakers. >> no man needs a strong partner, an honest partner more than the american president sheltered and cocooned as he is in what harry truman called the great white prison. so that's what i concluded after five years and hundreds of interviews, that those presidents with brave spouses willing to speak sometimes hard truths that others are unwilling to speak to the big guy, those presidents have a distinct advantage. let metive you an example. had pat nixon been able to cut through her puz's paranoia -- her husband's paranoia watergate might have been avoided. but pat had long since given up on her husband by the time they reached the white house. they were leading virtually

separate lives as you'll see in my portrayal in this saddest of all presidential couples. i don't give my husband advice, pat was quoted as saying, because he doesn't need it. well, is there a man or woman alive who doesn't need advice from the person who knows him or her best? >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies, author kati martin talks about presidential marriages and how the first ladies have helped to shape american history tonight at 9 eastern on c-span. >> and a live picture here from the certain for strategic and international studies, a discussion moments away with congresswoman donna edwards of maryland. she is the ranking member on the house subcommittee on space. representative edwards will talk today about federal investment in civilian space activities, mars exploration and the future of nasa operations. csis technology and public policy program director james lewis will moderate the event, and we expect it to get underway

shortly. live coverage right here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. welcome to csis. i clearly underestimated turnout, so we will be bringing more chairs. i thought, you know, four-day weekend, rain, but there will be more chairs coming in soon. we are going to have a good discussion today, and i'm looking forward to it. donna edwards is the representative for maryland's 4th congressional district, just down the road from us, and she's been in office since 2008. she serves on the science,

space, technology committee and is the ranking member for the subcommittee on space. before going to law school and entering politics, congresswoman edwards worked for lockheed at the goddard space center on the space lab program. all those who know what space lab is, hold up your hand. oh, this is a good audience. we were laughing about it beforehand. [laughter] so someone with real background in the industry and on the issue. she's going to talk about the importance of federal investment in civilian space, the role of nasa in economic growth, the benefits to the u.s. of maintaining a robust space program, something which i'm pretty sure most of you believe in. and how we need sort of a unifying vision for nasa's role and for space exploration. and i understand that today you'll be introducing legislation on this? could be. we'll find out. [laughter] so with that, um, the format for today is the congresswoman will speak for 20, 30 minutes

depending on how you want, and teen we'll take -- then we'll take questions for a little bit of time. so with that, let me turn it over to her. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, jim, and good morning to everyone. i want to especially thank the center for strategic and international studies this morning for allowing me to join you to discuss the future of the nation's civil space program. and, you know, i've always relied -- and this is not brownnosing, although you do learn how to do that in school -- i have relied tremendously on the good work of the folks here at csis, so i just really appreciate being able to be here today. as i look out, i see a lot of friends and colleagues, people who work in the industry, staff of the science committee, i can see them as well. and i know that they're waiting, too, to hear what i want to say this morning. and so i'll get on with it. like some of you, and as jim just described, i'm a mercury,

gemini, saturn, apollo child. i grew up not wondering, but knowing that we could, indeed, journey beyond the earth and into the heavens. i watched the miracle of those early missions on my little black and white television, our family television, and i watched if amaze m that first -- in amazement that first step, that giant leap. so i've been hooked since childhood, and i think the question for all of us is how we hook this next generation from kindergarten forward. and so while the focus of today's discussion is the national aeronautics and space administration's human space flight efforts, nasa is and should remain a multimission agency. and i want to reaffirm my commitment today to that approach. indeed, it's the connectedness of the multimission concept that makes nasa and the united states the envy of the world. in addition to human exploration in space flight, nasa has made incredible progress in meeting national priorities to improve

observations of our dynamic earth and its processes. explore bodies within our solar system, to advance heel yo physics and research astrophysics, to understand the creation and the properties of our universe. in fact, nasa ahas such unique expertise in each one of these fields that its missions are linked to its stated vision of reaching new heights and revealing the unknowns to benefit all human kind. those are from nasa's own web site. it's its mission. we have to work to insure that nasa's diverse portfolio is balanced and funded adequately to reflect our commitment to each of these components. if we expect nasa to do the work of the future, we have to provide a budget in the present that allows those goals to be filled. it is, perhaps, my biggest nitpick with the way that congress does business. and i might add, to do that work within achieve bl time --

achievable timelines and with safety at the the forefront. as an authorizer and a member of the science, space and technology committee, i remain committed to outlining the missions of the agency and to be honest about what it takes to get the job done. we're a nation of great people. we've said that. we've done amazing things, we have. but it's time for us to support nasa and our space industry in doing those amazing things in the 21st century. since its inception in 1958, nasa's been the anchor of our nation's civil space program, and from dwight eisenhower's pen to president kennedy's call to action 1961, nasa has led the charge to expand the boundaries of our scientific and technological capacity while meeting daring challenges of national significance. nasa's success in civil space has inspired generations of scientists, engineers and astronauts and just plain interested people like me. nasa's young and old continue to be captivated and motivated by the mission.

and, indeed, the most recent solicitation for astronauts even without a defined, new destination resulted in an astounding 6400 applicants, nearly double the number during the space shuttle era. thankfully, enthusiasm in the public for civil space and human exploration remains robust. we have to make sure that's true in the government realm as well. among politicians. and so therein lies the test, to define the next generation of science, innovation and exploration, to match that enthusiasm. now, from the beginning nasa was given a daunting task, create a civil space program in the nation largely from scratch which has led to the growth of a global civil space enterprise valued at nearly $300 billion. but while also meeting one of humankind's greatest challenges, namely lending a -- landing a man on the moon. now, during the, this year's state of the union address,

president obama called for a level of research and development that's not been seen in 50 years since the early days of the space race. and while he didn't mention nasa specifically, we know that space exploration has to be the centerpiece of an innovation agenda that president obama described. i think it's time for us to be unified as a nation around a bold vision for nasa. the industry should inspire our entire nation. now, in 1957 when the soviets launched their sputnik satellite, we had no idea how we would beat them in space, we just knew that we could. and we set in motion the path to the moon and ushered in several decades of innovation that have made the united states the premier leader in science, engineering and space exploration. now, similarly our nation's 21st century space innovation agenda requires the same high-risk, high-reward wager.

of we can't simply shelf the past and move into the future, but our 21st century space agenda innovation agenda should reflect the times that have changed in those 50 years. so unlike the '60s, we have now a mature agency at the helm where tough lessons have been learned about schedules and budget and safety. we have a mature industry that's entrepreneurial and nimble. it's ready to take on tasks that are assigned and also prepared to create their own. we have mature international set of partners who are prepared to collaborate as they never have before. the international space station was really just a dress rehearsal for the future challenges. and bar none, we have the best scientists, the best engineers and the best work force to meet those challenges. one thing that is the same as yesterday is that the united states must lead. one of nasa's most recent

undertakings, the curiosity rover, captivated thousands who stood in times square and thousands more around the country. i'm smiling because i was one of them. up at night to watch what some have described a as a scientific and technological marvel. i just thought it was cool, and it was a lot more precise than my own parallel parking. [laughter] not only kid nasa demonstrate that she's still on the cutting edge of scientific research and engineering, it was also really good economics. according to the agency, curiosity helped create and support 7,000 good, high-paying american jobs during its eight years of planning and development. and most of those were in the private sector. so when we think about how we grow our economy and how we create a highly-skilled work force, we have to remember that nasa has always been, will always be a source of innovation and tangible economic benefits for american families. the fact is that from the

beginning nasa, and by extension the entire space industry, has always been good business. maryland is home to 17 of the top 25 aerospace companies, but we're not alone. from start-ups to large corporations, big and small universities the united states is really fertile ground for space entrepreneurs. during the early years, technology innovation and development proceeded at a rapid pace to meet those challenges. from rocketry to aeronautics to commercialization of lunar mission technologies, the result has magnified the influence of space exploration. now, one of my favorite publications is nasa's journal spin-off. i love knowing about the things that we take for granted every day that come from technology development that was spawned by space exploration over the last 50 years. water purification technology used on the apollo spacecraft is now employed in several applications to kill bacteria, viruses, algae in community

water supply systems and, yep, my own home water filter. computer face advances made possible integrated inventory and process management systems, improved computer-assisted manufacturing. in fact, this morning as i was getting dressed, on television there was a company that was running an ad about its improved manufacturing processes that were all electronic and digitized and computerized. that's because of nasa technology. nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. we hardly even say that anymore, mris. computer tomography cts and regulating heart pumps, lasers for satellite-based atmospheric research used for my eye laser surgery and cool suits by astronauts on the moonwalk that are used for individuals with multiple sclerosis have really transformed medical technology. and the list goes on and on.

i think sometimes i go to schools, and i describe to students my connection, personal connection to nasa technology, and i describe the car accident that i had where that air bag that safed my life -- saved my life was nasa technology. and we can't even find a car that's manufactured today that doesn't have that technology in place. and so when we commit ourselves to ambitious goals, we should do so with the knowledge and the total confidence that we have a work force that capable of truly awe-inspiring results. and today that competent work force is waiting for a bold vision for nasa's future that's going to take us to the next frontier. now, curiosity has 1.4 million twitter followers. i'm one, i know that there are a lot in this room. but in 1997 the landing of sojourner, a smaller nasa robot, streamed live on the internet to audiences of hundreds of thousands. later, spirit and opportunity also had their turn on the

internet. when they landed on mars. so one can only imagine what will happen when we send people there. there's a growing consensus among the scientific community that that next great frontier really is mars, and i agree. this is our moment to unite behind a truly audacious vision. it's time to meet the american public where it already is, and the american public is already on mars. with sojourner, with spirit, with opportunity and curiosity. it's time for us to recapture our frontier spirit with nasa once again guiding us to do the absolutely impossible. so we have a choice. we can either hold on to and reminisce about past missions and accomplishments, or we can chart a bold new vision for 21st century space exploration and innovation. i want to choose the latter. we don't need another report or another commission. it's time now that we commit, i mean really commit to a manned

mars mission. this will require collective and uniform support on the part of the president, congress, nasa and its work force, the private sector and the scientific community. all of us on one page and of one mind. in fact, i think that part of what has happened over these last couple of decades is that even at the height of employment, 135,000 or so folks and now down to around 50,000 if i have my numbers right, part of that in part is because a lack of vision and clarity on the part of policymakers, and that truly has to change in order for the agency and the industry to succeed. we have a space agency that's demonstrated that it can operate in fast forward and make mars happen. we just need to give it the tools and the resources that it needs to succeed. investments in our civil space

enterprise support emerging industries, foster commercialization and grow our economy. while improving our international competitiveness. however, lacking an ambitious and unifying vision coupled with flat or decreased funding our long-successful mission-focused human space flight program has been paralyzed and imperilled by start-stops redirection. without a unifying vision that inspires contractors, researchers and the american public, that inspires kindergarteners, we risk losing our global edge in space and jeopardize significant advancements in innovation and economic development. failure to establish a visionary goal undermines our ability to attract, recruit and maintain the skill sets that are necessary for high technology projects. our current experienced work force continues to age -- present company excluded -- [laughter] and it is in jeopardy of

switching industries because uncertain long-term missions and funding result in declining morale and increase the potential for risk. the reality is that we simply cannot afford to have our best and brightest leave the space work force. if our preeminence diminishes, so too will our work force. the risk of diminishing stature in space exploration cannot be overstated. and while the united states remains a leader, there are increasingly more space-faring nations. these countries are not just planning to put satellites into orbit, but they're planning ambitious exploration missions that include the moon, near-earth asteroids and even a mission to mars. the chinese are taking serious steps to build their space program and recently completed their fifth manned mission and have goals to complete a sample return mars mission by 2030. in our current dependence on the russians to access the international space station is another area of consternation

that has to be fixed. and while these nations and others will experience varying degrees of success, it should not be our goal to engage in a competitive race, but if competition is necessary for us to gun the engines, then we have to do that. our goal has to be to capitalize on our current expertise and the spirit of exploration that's helped us succeed over the last century. the truth is that space exploration is truly difficult. missions can take unexpected turns and unforeseen challenges are certain to arise. now, my colleagues on the science committee also have to be challenged to appreciate the complex scientific missions and the fact a that no one, not anyone can plan for the unknown. put simply, in space things just happen. nasa and its talented private sector partners of which there are many has been always been capable of meeting any

challenges presented. and with over a hundred successfully-launched manned flights in addition to its other mission directorate activities like developing the hub el space telescope, spacecraft to study jupiter and saturn and explore outer space and earth-observing satellites that have revolutionized our understanding of our processes, the agency has a success rate that far exceeds other space-faring nations. we're good at this. and with respect to mars activities, nasa has completed 13 successful missions out of 19 attempts. comparatively, the russians have four partial successes and 15 failed missions. curiosity became the sixth rover to attempt to land on mars and is nasa's fourth rover that's been sent there. again, we are good at this. in recent years our unmanned space program has also been tackling new challenges. for one, the rover became the curiosity rover became nasa's

most advanced spacecraft equipped to navigate the difficult martian terrain and survived one of the most complex, precise landings. the instruments onboard curiosity will be essential to answering some of our questions about the origins of life and the potential for other life forms in our universe. as you can imagine, the challenges with a manned mission to mars are manifold compared to a robotic mission. the first of which is safety and the second, funding in the current fiscal environment. but i would caution us because if dwight eisenhower or president kennedy had thought about the funding priorities in getting to the moon, they would have said, no. but they didn't. they said, yes. and they were okay not to even live to see that accomplished. our challenge really has to be the same. and if we commit today to reach mars by 2030, we'll have more than a 15-year funding profile for planning and development to

meet the challenges of accomplishing a complex mission. and if you think about that kindergartner today, that means that within that child's lifetime that child will get to experience what some of us, what i experienced when we did apollo and gemini and saturn. a 15-year funding window. the major scientific challenge will be to understand the impact of deep space missions on humans. not only will astronauts be traveling for long periods of time in compact space, but during long duration space travel, astronauts will experience dangerous solar storms and galactic cosmic rays resulting in high levels of radiation. and with our current technology, it would take six months to reach mars and another six to return to earth, but that's the point. we're not talking about our current technology. just the travel to and from mars might expose humans -- would

expose humans to radiation levels that would exceed the maximum allowable career limit for a nasa astronaut. this is why we need new technology investment. curiosity's radiation assessment detector is providing life science experts early information about these radiation levels and allowing scientists to consider the implications for astronauts as well as the sort of suit, shielding equipment and life support that's going to be needed to safely transport nasa astronauts to and from mars. we do want them to return. now, given the safety priority, nasa also has to develop lighter shielding, develop new to pulse technology that can -- propulsion technology that can take astronauts to mars faster and a heavy lift system that can support all of the necessities. tease are serious challenges. -- these are serious challenges. propulsion would be critical to the long-term plan for this mission. nasa and some private companies are already working on

propulsion technology aimed at expediting the journey. you see, we've already begun the process. the question is whether we will commit to seeing it through. we would also need to consider how we can evolve the current space launch system and orion capsule to meet mars mission requirements. these are answerable questions, but we must get to the task of actually answering them. the challenge of entry, descent and landing comes next. for the curiosity rover, the mars science laboratory developed a high-precision system that required six different spacecraft configurations, 76 pyrotechnic devices. the largest supersonic parachute ever designed and manufactured and more than 500,000 lines of code to execute the requires maneuvers to safely ease curiosity to the surface. 500,000 lines of code? that's a lot of job jobs in the

industry. it's a lot of testing too. the spacecraft that will carry humans to mars could be the size of a two-story home weighing 40 tons. the rover weighs a ton and in terms of size is only comparable to a small car. we have a lot of work to do. the initial challenges are clear, and they're significant. but the potential benefits to include technological advancement, potential resource mining and an improved understanding of our earth's history and processes makes this mission worth doing and worth doing safely. in order to accomplish this challenging and pioneering endeavor, we have to declare as a nation that a manned mission to mars is a priority and a program of national significance. we need to determine which milestones along the road to mars would address the risks and challenges to reach the martian surface and safely return. successive nasa authorization acts have authorized a steppingstone approach to human

exploration. this is not new to us. our mission to the moon took incremental steps through the mercury, gemini and early apollo missions to land humans on the moon, we need to take a steppingstone approach also to reaching mars. milestone destinations include the moon, near-earth asteroids, mars orbit or martian moons among the many steps that can be talkin' to be considered to help -- taken to be considered to help prepare for eventual human exploration of mars. i want to caution and make very clear that in my view neither congress, nor the president should assign any of these destinations to nasa in a road map to mars. it's not our job. we have to resist the urge to prescribe nasa's technical requirements and instead allow the competent work force at nasa and within the scientific, engineering and academic community from top to bottom to

determine the necessary steps. neither presidentize -- president eisenhower, nor president kennedy sat down and did the job of scientists and engineers, and we shouldn't be doing that either. another critical component of the road map is establishing whether the international space station will be available as a test bed beyond 2020. extending the iss until at least 2028 will allow us to research further the um pact of microgravity on the human body. it'll provide an analog base in space for simulations and enable technology testing. this also provides an opportunity to p gauge our international partners early to determine their role in this long-term program. ..

>> we have to test and demonstrate technologies and assess hazards or potential risks as part of the road map. to finding nasa's long term vision and developing a clear road map is a priority of mine, and i hope to outline this priority through the 2013 nasa authorization act to be released later today. this road map provides certainty and direction to set nasa on the right course and reawaken our position as a nation in the driver's seat of 21st century innovation. human curiosity, the determination to explore and understand the world and universe around us has defined human kind, and we constructed high powered telescope to look into the heavens, developed

rockets powerful enough to land in space and landed manmade vehicles on another planet. we can accomplish nearly anything when we're truly determined. i know that the next time that i lay out on the beach, and i look into the stars, and i see mars, i want to know that it's americans who had the capacity to get us there. john f. kennedy said it best that we don't need to choose exploration and innovation because they are easy, but because they are hard. i hope that we can continue to hop nor that spirit that brought us so far and will take us even further than we can imagine. i'm ready, and so should we all be. thank you very much. [applause] and now the hard part, the

questions. how do we do this? >> i'll take them, you answer them. >> okay. [laughter] >> one in the front, yes? >> how can we get them to follow the lines? [inaudible] [inaudible] how do you do that? >> well, this is why i think it's a really great question because we know that politics plays a huge role in all of these discussions, but this is why i'm calling on all of us to develop collectively a unified

vision. i think it's actually been very difficult, both for the agency and for the private sector work force, to figure out who is on first from one president to a different vision and direction from one congress to the next, and so it's not even just about presidents and administrations' determination op what to do next, but it's also about what the congress has done, and what i'm saying to you here today is that it's time for us to stop that, and to come up with a unified vision, something that the congress, the president, and the agency all sign off on so that our industry knows where to go next. we developed this robust industry, and this misdirection puts us on the verge of allowing it to sink right before our eyes. >> over there. could i ask people to introduce

yourself and wait for the microphone. >> defense daily, a representative edwards, saying congress should not tell nasa the appropriate steps to get to mars. is there an effort in the subcommittee to what direct nasa to do whether they should go certain steps or not, and i wonder if there was an effort or defend the authorization report? >> that's what i'm cautioning against. that's exactly what i'm cautioning against. i think, you know, and especially somebody who workedded in the industry for a time and on a really wonderful project. one of the sensibilities that i think i bring to this is knowing that there are really incountribly competent, talented, smart people who are not in congress who need to figure this out, and that our goal has to be sort of like a board of directers to set a vision, to offer clarity in that

vision, and then to leave it to those who are talented to figure it out. while i think you can hear some of that in some of the discussions taking place in the committee over the last several weeks over months, again, what i'm saying today is that that has to stop. in order for the industry to grow, in order for the agency to involve, in order for the international partner to understand way is next, and for those in the academic community to also be on that page and mind, what's interesting to me, and we could hear that especially over the last couple weeks is that there is -- there's a lot of clarity, frankly, within the scientific community, but they have to be the ones to spell out the directions and to write that road map. we should be the ones to say we believe in the great vision, and

now let's have it fulfilled. >> [inaudible] >> i'm from business -- [inaudible] certainly on defense based on declaration. you stated not the decision, so can you throw light on that? it's going to appear not in america, but thank you. >> well, what i would say to that is that i recall when i was

part of the industry, and the international community was really in its infancy. that's really not true today, and so i think that we're going to have an awful lot of strategic partners if we have a unified vision and we can create jobs here in the united states, but also across the globe, and whether that is with india, i think that's a partnership that will facilitate the technological relationships that we need, but there's many all around the world that would be byed by robust leadership on the part by the united states, and when i say that the united states has to lead, it's not the kind of leadership that we experienced in the 1960s when, essentially, because of the cold war and other aspectings, bewere

the game in town. today is a very different challenge, and so when the united states leads, it coordinates the work of and galvanizes the work of what is not anymore a young and growing industry, but is very mature and can do a lot of things on its own, and it galvanizes scientists and researchers who are around the world. nasa's going to be at the center of that, but we will have a lot of other partners. >> from aerospace corporation. you emphasized homework to do to get where we need to go in the solar system, and i think we can certainly all agree with that, but they should not tell scientists and engineers how to

do their job. doesn't that conflict with the idea that congress says, thou shall go to mars and thou shall do it by 2030. with that approach, you risk have something we don'tment, like apollo 2.0. it's a bad thing because that means we would maybe have one or two missions that would be followed for two or three generations. should we not be moving away from the notion that it's all about destinations and deadlines and focus on development that teach us all things we need to go on further with a government contract. >> in fact, i have not spelled it out, but i laid out a wide

array of opportunities that there are a big goal in mind and people have to understand they can look up to, and as much as we need to develop a private sector that operates on its own, and there's a lot of players in the private sector now who are as dependent on government contracts, but are thinking intelligently about the future and about technology, but the unless they embrace the idea and have the backbone necessary necessary for development. i don't know how many of you, but i certainly do, as i go around tho my community in a tough economic time, i hear people all the time say if we

need the chaos that's ten or a hundred fold when it comes to the technologies that will be developed, the industry that is created, and the opportunities that there will be for people who are not just invested in nasa's program, but for companies, for entrepreneurs and scientists and researchers thinking beyond the box of what the nasa frame will be. they are prepared to do it, but i think it really does, and i

hear the caution that we just don't want to be sending a bunch of resources into one place and let that be the end of it. this really does -- this effort really does have to spawn a whole new sense of adventure and frontier, and i believe that it can do that. >> i'm crayton jones with scientist magazine, and it's refreshing to hear what you said with this level of vision. i want your thoughts on what two props it seems. there has to be a reeducating of people in government about what real economic value is, what growth is, that it can't be simply measured in dollars and cents, but things like were we to develop new rocket

technology, how does that spin off to change everything in the economy. also, fusion, what's that do for it? what do you think in termings of what more we can do in terms of reeducating people about what real economic growth is, and how the space program gets us out of the economic crisis, one, and, two, there's a real crisis in education. i mean, you hear from industry, from machine tool factories that they just don't have the skilled labor force to carry out this kind of a mission, and were we to really have a robust space program, obviously, we need more and more at that level, so, secondly, how are we going to address the educational crisis? >> a couple of really good points. i think that when i think of our stem learning, science, technology, engineering, and math learning, what occurred to me is when i was in grade school, and some of you remember

this as well, that the mere fact of a robust space program inspiredded people to want to do science and math, and so we did have that generation that was created, and then we had a lapse, and people are no longer as inspired, not in the same kind of way, and so it's kind of one thing to push money out into stem fields, but it's another to show young people what a bold vision is and what they can aspire to, and so much of that and what nasa and the industry does is about aspiration, and when aspirations are there, we will -- we'll find the teachers, the students will come pouring out to learn, but not if they don't know there's anything on the other side, and so i think that these things work together, and so it's important for us to make the investment in stem learns so that we create the kind of work force that's really

needed to see out this vision, but we have to recognize that we have to have a vision in order to create that education stimulus for young people to grow and learn and develop, and then with respect to the industry, i think that it is -- it's really complicated to get policymakers to see on the other side of something, and so we have to tell the story about all of the great innovations that nasa has spawnedded, and, i mean, nasa, itself, i think, holds 6400 patents, and not the mention pa tempts held throughout the industry. that's real economic development and growth, and when you tell the story about the air bags or the titanium in your braces or the sunglasses more protective than they used to be from ultra

ultraviolet light. those are things that help people understand the true economic value of what this industry produces. >> thank you for talking to us, and i'm afraid my question is not as interesting. in the hearings, the subcommittee's proposal, it's clear there's disagreement, and people are of the opinion that things have to change before it goes to mark up. here we are going to markup. what changes, if any, will you propose? >> well, you know, in television they say "stay tuned," and so this afternoon, i'll will releasing a proposal about a vision, and i think there's two minds here, and there's draft

legislation that here are constraints under which we are right now. i don't think it's the way you do science, frankly. i think when you invest in science, you have to, again, think aspirationally, and so i've proposed a vision that recognizes that we have fiscal constraints, but also that plots the workout over a 15-year period that really will spur the time line that's responsible. there's things that occurred to me since i've been on the committee is the constant adding to the lawn drey -- laundry list of things that nasa is supposed to do and the industry is supposed to fulfill without providing anywhere near level of resources that are

requiredded, and so, again, you will see authorization i'll produce that recognizes the multimission focus of the agency because i believe those missions are incredibly important to all the work and connected to each other that will allow us to do space exploration in a responsible way, but you'll also see a funding profile that says nasa, we believe in you, and we believe in what the industry can do, and we're prepared to invest in that vision, and it will be bold, and it will audacious. >> i think we have two more questions, and that might have to be it. there's one in the corner there -- we have four questions. do you have time? >> sure. [laughter] >> thank you. we have time for four more questions, but that's it. [laughter] >> i'm peter johnson, and the

goal of 2030 or bust, how do you protect programs from being cut? >> well, i think, as you just heard, i believe, and. i to reaffirm a commitment to the multimission focus of the agency. out in my district, near in my county, the home of the goddard space flight center, the home of an awful lot of work that's not necessarily focused on human exploration, and yet there's great value to understanding the earth. great value in understanding the sun, and everything in between, and i believe in that went want to make an investment in it. i think we as one of the things

that set nasa apart is this nation's space agency is the fact that we've taken on all of the big work to be done, and whether that is in physics or astrophysics and earth science and human exploration and all of the research and technology in between. i think that that is the value of the agency, and it is a value of all of the industries that have grown up around this agency. it would be irresponsible, irresponsible for us to give up on the multimission focus. >> [inaudible]

i'm a member of the national press conference. [inaudible] see any difference between the present commission. [inaudible] thank you. >> is there a difference? well, one of the difference is that i'm on the committee now. [laughter] i think we have, actually, a number of new members on the science committee with a deep understanding and commitment to our nation's space program at large and understand that human exploration is a significant component and should be of what we do, that there's many other things that the agency does, and, i mean, look at what

happened now with weather forecasting and predictions, and that -- those fields have grown up around a robust and developed nasa committed along with noaa, and so i will just share with you that over these next several weeks, we're also going to have a very robust discussion about the future of space exploration, and whether we have a commitment as a nation to make the investments that are necessary and required for us to remain at the top, and we can either be content to look backwards, and we can be content to be second, or we can strive for a vision that makes certain that we're first and that we lead.

>> one in the back all the way by the wall. >> thank you for being so generous with your time today. curious whether you'd have engaged in discussions with members of your subcommittee as to renewing or improving our sharing regime as a way to drive innovation. >> we have, and i think that what you see, though, reflected in our authorization is, you know, a recognition, and i have to say from the commercial side, those of you who see me evolve over the past couple years understand that i was not a believer at first in the role of commercial companies and commercializing space

transportation, and it's an evolution that's in process, and i've actually been quite pleased with the progress that's been made thus far and really look forward to the future, and i think that that risk sharing is something that we're going to have to come to grips with. you know, part of me, though, frankly, says that if you have an industry that wants to engage in the commercial sector, then it's actually really important that you do what other risk takers do in the larger economy, and on the other hand, i also do understand that some of those risks are unforeseen in the area that is emerging and developing and so it's a conversation that we need to continue to have. thank you. was that four? [laughter]

>> okay, the last question. a gentleman there on the left in the red tie. >> jeff, face the view. with these dualing authorization bills, do we run the risk of nasa policy being more partisan than traditionally in the past, and what can we do to avoid that? >> i don't know if you're talking about the recent past, but i have to tell you over the last couple years, in fact, it's been sadly, quite partisan, and i think i've had a chance to discuss, already, with some of my colleagues on the other side, some of the issues, and i think that this will be a work in progress. what i will conclude by saying is that i believe, and i think that most americans really believe in the agency, its work partners, and the academic community, and we have a

challenge to make sure the public can push us in a healthy way to do the right thing for our space program for the next generation, that that doesn't have a d or an r written behind it. it has an "s" for science. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] lawmakers return to capitol hill today with both chambers gaveling into session at two eastern following their 4th of july recess. the house works this week on bills this fund energy and water projects for fiscal year 2014, and the senate, today, votes on judicial no , nomination for th circuit court of appeals. members are expected to work on 2014 federal spending bills, but have not announced which to consider. the senate takes up legislation to address the doubling of interest rates on federal subsidized student loans which took effect last week. watch the senate live here on c-span2 #, live house coverage over on c-span. with congress back today, we have live coverage off the floor of a house, energy, and commerce subcommittee hearing looking at the impact the 2010 health care law has on medicaid. the program will be expanded to

include an additional 7 million people. watch live coverage of that hearing at 4 p.m. eastern over on c-span3. staying on c-span3, we have live remarks from former cia director talking about how u.s. dependence on foreign and domestic oil affects our national security. hosted by johns hopkins school of advanced international studies, live coverage is scheduled for 6:30 eastern. >> five years from now, i think we're still going to be looking at a world that's dominated by the traditional paid tv packages. you know, people have waited for years to see the paid tv package blow apart. it's starting to happen, though, there's erosion around the edges, not through changes, but those in accumulating rates. over ten year, that will be a

large audience that the programmers and the entertain industry will have to address and have to serve. >> we are trying to set up an opportunity for broadcasters to turn in some of their respective rights if they choose to, to decide to channel share or move to another part of the spectrum, and in return, get a part of the auction proceeds, turn around, and sell it to the wireless companies for flexible use. >> more from this year's annual cable show, "the communicators" tonight at eight eastern on c-span2. >> last week, honeywell chairman ceo, david cody, sat down with the "wall street journal" for a wide ranging discussion on economic growth, the deficit, international technology competitiveness, and energy policy. from new york city, this is an hour.

>> well, welcome, everyone. this is a delight to be able to speak with david cot ergs. we're going to cover a number of topics today. we'll jump right in. everything from honeywell to debt, and the riskiness of being on risk committees. interestingly, there's a larger topic maybe to address first, which is that honeywell is in more than a hundred countries. it is a diverse conglomerate, emission controls, avionics, and clothing. i'd imagine you can give us a better read on the global economy at this stage of the game than the imf could. could you give us a sense of what's happening out there? what's the state of affairs? where's growth likely to come from? >> right now, my view, not much

is happening at all. i was talking earlier kind of comparing notes, and, i mean, i hope that ben bernanke is right. it doesn't feel that way yet, but i'm not an economist, not a forecaster, so i have to deal with what's happening now, but there's just this incredible sideways overall. i got back from two weeks in asia going to india, china, japan, and other than japan where you feel some enthusiasm not felt in the previous ten to 15 years i was going, the rest is sideways overall, and now, when it comes to where do i think the growth is going to come from in the long term, there's a shift going on. you see a lot of people writing about it, but i think statistics pointed out even more than we think sometimes, and this is

usda economic data, also global insight that say the same thing. look at competition, world gdp over 20 years, the u.s. declined from 26% to 22%, and other developed regions declinedded from about 46% or so down to about 24, and high growth regions, brazil, mexico, china, india, russia, all the other places that are growing, it goes from, like, 29% to 47% over the next 20 years. my numbers are not perfect. i know you are financially conversant saying, well, that does not add to a hundred, well, it doesn't. [laughter] i know that up front. >> that's the world's first big problem. [laughter] >> it's directionally correct. i have the real numbers at some point, but that's a real change, and that startedded ten years ago. you could see the curves changes, and that's where we

have to go for growth. right now, you need high growth regions to grow the company. >> putting numbers on it, what's the u.s. economy? what are you planning for, you and your finance guys sitting down, what do you plan for growth in the u.s., next year, europe, asia? >> i prefer to be on the conservative side with economic or sales forecasting because i think that just causes you to put costs in a better position and easier to add than take out generally, but the way we look at the u.s. is that it's over the next three years, a 2% economy, and europe is a 0% economy. >> over the next three years, 2% economy? >> over the next three years. that europe is 0, and india's four, and china is in the six to seven range. that's the way we plan the company. i hope i'm wrong, i want to pick the scenario with an 80% chance of that or better, but i'm a little fearful we might be

right, just given the way -- i can't recall forecasts over the last two or three years saying, gee, for the total year, we held better than expected. >> 4 and 6% sounds good for india and china, but they are low. >> comparedded to where they were, yeah, much lower. >> the in the case of china, are you investing in china? >> oh, sure. >> you're going to increase your activities there? >> well, the way i look at china is there's a short term and long term phenomena to deal with, and in the short term, they have to go through a lot of turmoil, a lot of economic turmoil. they are going to get a hold of the banks, the soes, change to a consumption based economy, a lot of change vie -- they have to go through, and while it's painful, and we saw that pain in the first quarter, the soe trends falling off the

cliff, but at the end of the day, china's shown a real ability to evolve as a country, and we're big believers, talking about this in the company a lot, about the need to evolve, a person, an organization, a country, you have to be able to evolve because if you are not changing every year and, ternally changing every 4%, at the end of the ten years, there's a 50% change, and that's a revolution. you have to keep evolving. they've shown an ability to do that, and i said to many groups that a lot of people compare china with japan's evolution, and i don't think that's the right parallel. the way we look at it is that the way the u.s. looks at china is probably how 150 years ago the u.k. looked at the u.s., and that that's probably the better parallel, and you look at the time we had a lot more people, we had a dinism where we

celebrated business and what it did for productivity and prosperity for people. we had i.t. problems with britain, by the way,. we were the guys who were stealing ip then. you look at it and say, okay, over the course of 150 years, we became the biggest economy in the world. there was a couple world wars to deal with, but at the end of the day, i think the trend was probably the same. if we take a look at china, they have four times the number of people we do. they can grow at 7% to our 3% for another 25-30 years before they're economy's the -- their economy's the same size meaning their gdp per capita is lower than ours meaning they can grow for a long period of time at that low rate. there's a chance they messed it up because there's a number of things to get through. it could be the country, city, rich, poor, territorial dispute -- >> 6% growth which may not absorb the unemployed. >> 6% growth is not bad. >> ah.

>> i'd settle for half that right now in the u.s.. >> with their organizations -- >> at the end of the day, i don't think we should ever be short on this or think they are not capable. going 50 to 70 years in the future, and i try not to be that futuristic, but 50-70 years, that could be the story everybody's writing, and that's why we spend a lot of time of getting back to the investment point. we spend a lot of time on what we call becoming the chinese competitor. you have to be able to beat your local chinese competitor in china because if you can't beat them there, you face them in western europe or facing them in the u.s.. for every single business there, the next big global competitor, my view, is likely to be from china than any place else. >> you do a lot of specific manufacturing or operations in china including avionics. how have you dealt with the

issue of dj transfer, which is a nice way of saying, you know, if it's not a cybersecurity problem, and then they had ventures to transfer technologies and how have you dealt with that? >> the second point you make about requirements to add in technology if you do something, that's not a new thing china's doing. every country, every developing country does that. that's one of the things that you deal with. getting back to becoming a chinese competitor, we've set up standards that says for every single business, where do they need to get to? it's a self-evaluation to go through that we all participate

in and talk with them about. if it's a business that does have a lot of proprietary technology associated with it. you think about what we call ulp, developed process technologies or aerospace, we are extremely careful about what we develop in the country, and if we're going to manufacture in the country, we are extremely careful about what we're going to do there against someplace else and send in. i think we are -- we put a lot of thought into what we are willing to do there. now, there is a nice change that's going to be coming. i met with premier lee weeks ago in china, and i raised the issue of intellectual property and asked where does this stand? it's an issue for us. you want us to invest in the country, where does it stand, and how do you look at it? i took it as an interesting perspective because his answer was we are going to be doing more on that. we recognize it's important for

the economy. however, we are not doing this because a foreign country tells us to do it, in other words, you, dave, but because we recognize it's important for our own development because we're starting to develop technology in the country now, and we have to ensure those people who develop the technologies in the country can be protected. again, getting back to the evolution, i think this is an evolution that's going to occur in qhie that, and that they get it, and they have not taken this seriously as they could have in the past, and everybody knows that who had any dealings there, but i think it's going to be part of the revolution. >> could be hold r our breath for a limit while. >> i'm not saying it's happening tomorrow, but it's coming. >> yeah, yeah. we had a conference of cfos in washington. >> yeah. >> you spoke there, and later on in the conference, we asked them, so, you had a lot of cash on the balance sheet last year because of the global

uncertainty, and that was in the middle of the european crisis this last summer. how about now? are you holding more cash, the same, or less? things have gotten better in the world, better, settled down in europe, and, yet, nearly half the cfos hold more cash on the balance sheet, almost a third say they are holing the same, and now, that reflects uncertainty you crib described in the growth numbers. just global growth or washington they are uncertain about? >> well, if you're looking for something to be uncertain about, there's a number of things to pick. [laughter] there's uncertainty whether it's what's going on globally, what europe is doing, the places around the world, syria, iran, north korea that could blow up the political issues in our own country. your want to be uncertain, there's a lot of people to pick right now. it's interesting that before the

great recession, i used to say that once you've invested in businesses, you had three uses of cash, dividends, repurchases, or acquisitions. now i've added a fourth one which says, well, you can just have more cash on the balance sheet. now, i don't have to let it go to apple proportionses, but i don't mind given the experience we had in 2008 and 2009, i don't know it's that bad to have reserve on your balance sheet. that's how i fine myself looking at it. >> get to the i indolence part. in addition to the leading honeywell over the last decade, and it's been on a roll, stock prices, sales, way up. >> thank you for noticing, thank you. >> you've taken time off to work down in washington to colead this group of ceos in the

campaign called fix the debt. you got hsm involved -- heavily involved with that last year. you called it a revolution on the disdysfunction. can you elaborate on that? from a business perspective, tell us what was revelationtory? >> i guess i knew it was different than business. i had no idea how different until you actually get in there and see the sausage being made. man, it's really different, and the more i had a chance to think about it more than i used to in the past given the participation, and with government, you want stainability and trusted institutions. those are big things you want. for that, you're willing to sacrifice a lot of efficiency

for that stainability. government efficiency is the ultimate oxy moron we have to deal with because you sure don't see it any place you do anything. it doesn't mean the right people are not working hard, but in terms of what gets done is very slim. i viewed it, started to view it as it's part of the price you pay for stainability, that you can be sure that you have trust in the institutions, but a hundred years from now, government's still going to be here. business is different. there, we want efficiency because we want productivity to lead to standard of living and productivity for everyone so there needs to be risk taking and the risk of bankruptcy if you make the mistake, the opportunity for grand slams if it's right, and you are willing to trade there because that's where you get the living. the mistakes made are when we start to think they are the same or why can't dwoft act like business, or if you're in a public company and people say,

well, gee, you know, businesses should be run like a democracy. shareholders vote, and diffuse power and so that, you know, bad things don't happen. well, then, you give up efficiency you want from the private sector in the first place, and one of the ways i've taken to try to describe the whole thing, which anows people sometimes, but, you know, growing up in new hampshire and being a ceo, i always felt like what i thought, what i said, what i did all had to be the same thing. if you're in government, that's three separate decisions. [laughter] right? think about it, what they say is not necessarily what they think. what they do is not what they say or think. it's -- there's a complexity to what they do that i don't have to deal with, and you just watch it sometimes, and i remember meeting with paul once and telling me, well, i'm with you dave.

i thought, great, i walked out, talking to the guy, saying what a great meeting. no, boss, we're in trouble. >> i said, what do you mean? he's not with us? i know he said that, but that's not what he means. this is what he means. oh, okay, well, i got more learning to do her. it's just very different and much more difficult to get anything done. you have 536 independent contractors; right? if i come to honeywell, i generally make most decisions. there there's 536 independent contractors. >> you walked in the door, you were talking with president obama, you were talking with people on the hill, camp, baucus, and you are a chief representative of the business community, ceo magazine this year names you ceo of the year so you have standing in the business community. did you feel it made a difference or were you one more

voice that was not going to be heard? >> i'd say probably the thing that made the biggest difference over time in terms of billing credibility with both sides of the aisle is my participation on the simpson-bowles commission. that did it more than anything else because you're going through that crucible of a process. you build a lot of relationships. i'd say the understanding of how business works, generally, and how decisions are made and what's happening, there's a few of the guys who know all of that stuff; most of them don't. there's more based on who do you know and how do you know them, and simpson-bowles process was good. i was spending a full day a week on doing this stuff. i was the only guy other than bawls and simpson to attend every single meeting we had from

start to finish. i took it seriously if we have a serious problem, attack it seriously, and that builds credibility op both sides is they realize because you walk in as a titled ceo, you are immediately branded on how you are so you spend a number of -- and, by the way, i say the same thing happened with me where you go by what the media's written and find out they are different than what is written. there's that kind of process to go through. you do that for seven or eight months, you end up actually building good relationships overall and fair amount of trust. >> you got heard. >> yeah. >> but we're still no further along in the process than we were, say a year ago, are we? >> oh, i wouldn't say that's true. i wouldn't say that's true. >> tell me, where are we in the process? it seems the grid is still locked. >> this it was, again, if government acted more like business, we would have sat

there and looked at this thing, and you can see all the numbers and go, oh, mid god, we've got to take out somewhere between six and seven trillion dollars over the next, say, 15 years if we're going to have a shot of a fiscally responsible enterprise. one of my big accomplishments op the committee was getting it to at least four trillion because the -- a lot of people wanted it to be less than that because of the factor, and as you start to look at that four trillion say, okay, it didn't work exactly as i would have liked if it was a business problem, you would have come up with a solution at that point, somebody would have made a decision, and you said, okay, we're going to go forward and do that, but what you did see is it happened so 0% raises that were given to federal employees for three years, that was an outcome of that, save some money. that whole debt ceiling debacle we went through, okay, painful as it was, it was an outgrowth

of that. the sequester? some might say that was a silly way to do it, tough to disagree with that, but at the end of the day, an outgrowth of that. the tax increase that did happen add the end of the year while anemic in business standards in terms of what should be done and ridiculous in terms of process, i'm it took another step. there's a -- it doesn't happen how we'd like it to in the business community, but it's happening and why we can't let up, and this is where the business community plays a big role because there's a number of people down there saying, well, we are not hearing about it. the business community is not speaking up the way they used to, and deficit's down to 600 billion, i can't believe that's disease now, but we are doing well now. we have to feel intensity and feel it relenslessly. >> dave kemp said about the

involvement in the talks on the deficit commission in the negotiations, head of the house, ways, and means committee. great to have them involved, great to have dave cote involved, forget taxes, not going to happen. you heard the same thing on the spending size as well. sounds like positions on both sides from raising revenue to putting spending, but you say that's not the case. slowly, this is eroding? >> i would say, remember the big learning on the three things? >> uh-huh. >> what they say is not necessarily what they think or what they are willing to do because at -- there's -- it's one of the things i learned is that there are really smart, well-meaninged people here. dealing with some of them, i can't believe what you said.

you can't. so illogical that you can't, but there are some of those. i ran into a lot of people who are very bright and really want to do the right thing. now, they might ideologically have views about it, but at the end of the day, they are smart now have to know, okay, at some point, there's a problem, and it requires compromise. i'm not -- i'm not ready to give up just based on what people say they are not willing to do, because at this stage in the game, until there's a deal, something they can talk about, of course, that's a safe place for them to be. i mean, why stir up everybody? i saw this happen with on the simpson-bowles commission, the left leaning organization come out against it because we recommended an increase of one year in age eligibility for social security recipients, 75 years in the future, and they started with how we're trying to steal social security.

i said, gee, you got to be kidding, 75 years, my grandchildren are retired by then. there's no effect here. they don't want to stir it up until they have to. >> is there the possibility of a grand bargain or instead become kind of going from chaotic moment to chaotic moment? sequester after another sequester, slowly, but surely, it hacks away at the deaf silt. >> well, you certainly don't want to exclude the possibility that a grand bargain is possible because it is possible, but you'd have to say the high probability outcome is we lurch from crisis to crisis. that's just the way the place seems to work. it's unpleasant, but i'd say there's a good chance it happens, and this problem is very real, you know, you'll see people writing now going, wait a minute, the latest cbo estimates, debt to gdp, gets to 75%, which, by the way, we thought was a horrific number,

and those who complain about the reagan years, it only got to 40% then. now we're at 75. it grows to 83 by the enof this decade, and some say that's manageable, but out into the next decade, you get to somewhere between 100 and 135%, and that assumes no recessions; right? look at the cbo, anybody else, nobody assumes recessions, and in the course of 20 years, there's a chance of two or three more recessions. you don't factor that in, and you're still at 1 00-135% of gdp because the baby boomer generation is retiring, and the medical care costs will crush the system. we can't afford it. now, if we wait until then to make those changes, you want to talk about civil unrest, you're going to get it then. the time to make the changes is know so that people can prepare, you know it's coming, most of them will not understand the programs until they are in it

and will not know something's not there anymore. it's the right time to make the changes now. there's enough people who recognize that and i say are willing to do something, and at the end of the day, the deal has to be that entitlement reform, in particular, medicare, in exchange for a tax increase. it's obvious, and that shows my naivety when we started simpson-bowles, talking to democrats, they said, no way we're doing entitlement reform unless there's a tax increase, and republicans say there's no tax increase unless there's entitlement reform. you sit there as a business guy saying, well, there's the basis for a deal. we're not that far away. [laughter] this looks logical. son of a gun, this thing's going to work, and here we sit. it's a deal along the lines you describe or do they create a

crisis environment that causes a lurch in resolution? what's the more likely outcome at this stage? >> oh, tough to know. bond marketses are unpredictable. interesting to show the difference between bid and politics. we'd have conversations on the commission saying, look, if we don't do something, bond market's going to force us to do it at some point. we don't want to be like greece. we have to do this thoughtfully, proactively, the way a great country does. what happens? well, you know, it's ten year notes go to 7% and so home mortgages are at ten, and there's a main street problem and you'll feel it. the question would be, well, when does that happen? do you have an idea of, like, what quarter, what year that happens? well, no nobody knows. all i can tell you is it's not going to go up a basis point a week, and that you can just draw the line and say, oh, shoot,

here's where the crisis happened. it's just going to happen. yeah, i think the risk is always there, a and especially as you look at the debt accumulation that in ten years from now, we'll be close to spending a trillion dollars a year in interest, just in interest, a trail dollars a year. now, i took to describes it this way because we deal with millions and billions effectively all the time, but for a trillion in perspective, bet a million dollars per day since jesus christ was born almost 2013 years ago, you still would not have spent a trillion dollars, and that's going to be our annual interest bill. you get to those numbers, you panic people, i don't know what happens in bond markets, and gdp numbers are not relevant because it's the psychology, the animal spirits, if you will, take over,

and all the sudden you have to make immediate changes, and that's why i think it's important for the business community to be making that kind and getting that message across from the significance so the ceo magazine accolade gave you cover with shareholders, i imagine, being named the ceo of the year for spending a day a week in honeywell. how did you make that understanding with the board of directers and with your big investors you would be spending this much time away from the day job? >> your presumption there is anything taken away from the day job. i would say that the actual fact is i had a hell of a lot less personal time than i used to do stuff that i liked to do because at the end of the day, tooting our own horn here and giving our honeywell commercial, our performance has been good in this time, but at the end of the day it's because we didn't take the eye off the ball, and,

interestingly, your first reaction as, at least for me, was, no, i can't afford to do something like this timewise, but i've been complaining about the deficit since the early 2000s, and when medicare part d was done, and it was unfunded and the answer was, look, it's only another $50 billion a year on top of the 450 deaf zit we already have, i thought, oh,man, i'm a lifelong republican, and thought even my own side is going crazy here. ..

you can have an effect year, you should do this. and it worked out in terms of board support they couldn't work out better. and, of course, the company did well which always makes it easier to keep doing that sort of thing. >> i want to get to the company before we go to questions. one other part of your life that distracted from unable operations is your position on the risk committee of the board of directors of jpmorgan. so you had just gone through sort of a meat grinder experience where shareholders approved but not by a wide margin your reappointment to the board after the problems that jpmorgan had in their trading desk, and let them come and concerns about risk at the company.

i wonder if you could kind of share with us what lessons you learned from having gone through that? >> well, i guess first i would say the whole process didn't bother me all that much. i find it kind of interesting to see how these things evolve sometimes, and i found this as a nice vignette to explain what it was like. so business week writes this really nice article about me and honeywell about, i would say, six weeks or so ago, sorry. at the end of the day bloomberg says we would really like to do kind of this retrospective on your life. because you're the american dream. things have worked out really well for you. you didn't start with much. parents, humble background. we will show it on bloomberg. that's really nice, okay, so i will do that. so go to the studios and we have

this little like agreement or something set aside, tvs and they're and two producers under talking to me about ge, honeywell is doing just great to the story is terrific. we are looking forward to doing this retrospective on your life. i'm thinking this is pretty nice. anytime i notice that on the screen behind is this bloomberg analyst talking about whether noishould continue as a jpmorgan director. so i turned to these two guys and said, am i the only one who notices the irony of all of this? their faces turn red. one of them said, look, we're not saying it's there. okay. i went to the interview, everything worked out fine. i would say the second kind of warning at all this is that this is where it was really beneficial to spend that much time in washington. because i got 59% of the vote and ended up learning that

that's a mandate. [laughter] so i'm in great shape. as long as you're about 50, it's a mandate. so i can't say that bothered me all that much. >> does it hurt you being able to operate on the board? >> does what? >> the vote. >> i one. [laughter] >> you did, but the shareholder -- >> i was on the high side of the three of us. >> shareholders signaled their concern about risk management. >> i mean come he gets back to again our people voted, what are the building and why. there was this whole jayme ceo thing that was part of that. protest about generally. who the hell knows? at the end of the day i passed. i'm still there, and we're going to continue. the company is going to do well speak let's talk about honeywell for a couple more minutes.

you led a renaissance at this company. it was in trouble when you took it over a little bit more than a decade ago. what did you find when you walked in the door needed to be changed? what were the embodying principles for keeping the change, that innovation going over that many years? >> yeah, i would say for any of you who are familiar with the company's history, as bad as a look from the outside, it was worse inside. and that was can is almost like everything he touched, we had a billion dollars worth of write-offs the previous four years. free culture, three companies brought together that hadn't been integrated. we had an empty pipeline of new products that we can have a lot left to go. globally, only 41% of our sales came from outside the u.s. so there was a lot of stuff that we had to address. a lot of legacy issues, too. we took i'd say kind of a

three-pronged approach, or three likes to this tool, and whether you want to describe it and are referred to as our business model. the first is where to address or photo. we ran the company based on a couple of factors. one is what i call great positions in good industry. good industry gives you a went to great positions allow you to grocery. we get about $10 billion worth of acquisitions and $6 billion worth of dispositions, total about 130 transactions. really change the growth profile of the company as a result. the second piece of it was what i call a diversity of opportunity where there is no one thing you can ever point to any company as a this is what's going to make honeywell over the next five or 10 years. but by the same token there's never any one thing that goes awry and creates a problem for us. we've got a great positions in good industries in a lot of places. >> these are the virtues of being a conglomerate, diversification? >> i think the sexy word not his

multi-and usher. conglomerate seems kind of old. so first was portfolio. the second was a focus on internal processes. the way i'll talk about that is to say it's important to just make sure the machinery works. when you're 130,000 people, there's a big part of this of just making sure you're getting all of those people the tools they need every day, better processes, better decision-making, the empowerment they need without losing control. just giving them a better assess us to work with so the machinery works. because at the end of the day, as i point out to my whole staff, is that all of us, all of us get our job done through someone else. we need to make sure they have the tools they need to work with. to both of those we apply our culture. we spent a lot of time focused on culture early on and decide what kind of company did we want. we have three different company cultures and there was something that internally was referred to as red versus blue war, that you

had read legacy honeywell, the blue legacy allied, agenda the paperweight didn't listen to either one. we had to decide on what culture do we want and how were we going to go forward as a company. i can remember as we're trying to talk about this on my staff, one of the guys said, why are we fooling around with this will be -- will have all the strategic issues to deal with? i can make all the strategic decisions you want but if nobody does any of them, it's not going to bed. how i'm going to work together and we've got to be able to get this done. i would say we done a pretty good job of being able to get things done. there's a couple of phrases i would use a lot. one is the trick is in the doing. also referred to as the big difference between compliance with words and compliance with intent. if you look at things like customer service manuals, new product introduction manuals,

management resource review manuals. as you go from company to company they all look pretty much the same. we all talk to the same people, read the same books. we all know this stuff so was there such a variability between companies? it's because how you actually do it, how do you make sure it happens, makes a big difference. and i would say our culture does pretty well that way. >> diversification doesn't create distraction, conglomerates, multi-industrial companies ran into problems in the '80s and '90s with kind of a lack of focus when there were so many things going on. it was hard to keep track of that many diverse industries. diversification trump that concern? >> i think it depends on how you diversify, and when it comes to that old word conglomerate there's all kind of conglomerates of the. it's not just in in the end of show sector. there's conglomerate immediate and financial institutions.

everywhere. as long as you're a different kinds of businesses within the was a particular kind of industry, you're going to run into that. you to look at what we've done, let's say the business models on how you run the businesses, they really aren't that different. if you were to go to like our control business, it's about $17 billion in total, some people would look at an it and y that's a lot of different products, a lot of different laces. and they would be right. but if he said how many actual business models on there? there's only three. one is how do you take your product to market with what we call our institution businesses. the second one is the one that sells the refineries the pulp and paper mills, kind of big projects. and the third one is multi-brand, multichannel distribution, you know, technology type products. the business model is the same. it's not like you're going from a finance company discussion to

an industrial products or avionics discussion. it's a lot more the same and is different. >> let me just ask one more question and we will go to questions from the audience. your company is doing a lot of r&d, a lot of innovation, everything around energy and emission controls. you've got a piece of the action at the shale gas revolution that's underway, or developing micro-drones. i'm wondering if you could reflect on where the u.s. is in the innovation curve at the moment. a great deal of concern we're not graduating enough engineers and so many are being graduate and the china and india of the world. are we short on innovation in years or are which is a little short on confidence? >> i wouldn't say we are short on innovation because we still, if you take a look at the number of the ideas we can generate we still have the best system in

the world for generating those ideas. enabling the possibility for those ideas to come to fruition. we still have the best system. however, we don't give enough credence to the fact that others are moving in our direction and that gap is going to continue to shorten. and i'll point india for example, and the tendency in india for people to view india as okay, you can get lower cost engineering, but it's lower quality but it's not as good as what we do. i would say when it comes to a lot of the software work we do, and would you a lot by the way, india to some of the best software work that we find in the world, including the u.s., and the capability of our guys have there is unbelievable. you can just go, just take an external standard is a way of measuring software quality in terms of your capability,

computer of maturity model index, mmi is referred, there's a ratings from one to five, five being the best in the world. there's only like 15 or 20 firms that have a level five mmi standard anywhere. our operation in india has had it for almost 20 years, and it's grown from about 500 people to over 7000 people. mostly doing software. because even when you look at a company like honeywell you would say okay, all your products, avionics, jet engines, controls, materials, turbochargers, that's old stuff that is shipped in the box. but we have about 22000 something engineers, more than half of them are doing software. more than half. even though everything we should in the box, software is the predominant technology that we deal with. when you look at a place like india and was able to do, china is starting to sink in, we need to recognize the rest of the work is starting to catch up.

we need a different model than we did 20 years ago. continue on that point, if you go back 20 years ago, there were only a billion people participate in the global economy. i think it was really just the u.s., western europe and japan and a couple other countries. today, there's about 4 billion people participating in the global economy. we vetted, -- we've added china, india, russia and other countries that are opening up and recognizing the private sector, a robust private sector as the key to prosperity. yet we still act like we did 20 years ago. we are still not recognizing that world gdp shift that is coming, it's already occurring, and we need to act differently as we have in the past but it's one of the thin things i said an american concerns me for my own country. i just don't feel like we get it yet and it's going to be one of these where we don't recognize it until it's too late. wood stove and to argue but our entitlements and taxes -- we are

still going to argue about our entitlements and taxes, schools, infrastructure. tort reform needs to get done. doing a better job with free trade. a lot of stuff, energy policy. a lot of stuff we need to be doing that we are just arguing. the rest of the world is moving. >> on that note, questions. yes, please. >> wait for the mic phone. if you would just tell us who you are. >> good morning. i'm a fighter i run our latin american business at a lot of great comments. thank you, a lot of different areas but maybe go back to the growth prospect and talk a lot about china for ability to grow, india and innovatioinnovatio n to i'm just curious about latin america and specifically something you said about china's ability to evolve. interested in latin america, brazil and mexico, growth prospects, ability to evolve. and your thoughts on attractiveness as a text

transfer part because obviously they're very interested in technology transfer. >> in latin america. >> yes. >> my concern with latin america in general is that i don't think politically those, all those countries have completely and over a populist leaning. and while we've had of populism in the u.s. for at least a century, going back to william jennings bryant, at least, it's like it never gets 50% of the vote. so i get, something of to do with but it never gets to a point where you get over 50% of the vote and people just start thinking the reason i'm not doing well is because those guys have everything. it's not to say that flavor isn't there but it's not there in an overwhelming instead. latin american countries still seem to show this too often, this ability to go from oki, we're opening up and then all of

a sudden going know, we're going to go the other way. there's this line i've always liked from churchill that said with capital and jeb unequal sharing of prosperity. with social and give equal sharing of misery. with a populist tendency unfortunately there's too much of a tendency to start to go that way and that what always makes me fearful. even when it came to brazil we participate there. it's a great market to be in, until a little bit recently, but you start to see it even with the bus fare stuff that's been going on down there. gee, you know, it started have the same tendency again. leaning to populism that takes over the government just still causes me some concerned. >> mexico? >> mexico i do differently. they still have the same kind of question concerned, but they benefit from being this close to

the u.s. i think where we have generally been able to not let that takeover. and mexico i'm pretty bullish on. i think there's a real, i'm starting to get nervous about in say 10 years ago, but from what i've been seeing i'm really encouraged by just the things they're doing with technical education, the static type but with the reforms that you're talking about generally on the education system. i'm really come on pretty encouraged by mexico at this point. spent questions? yes, please, way in the back. >> diane brady, bloomberg business week. fresh off the redeye so forgive me. i noticed an announcement of the joint venture, and i wanted to get a sense of your view of russia and whether you would actually be interested in coming if you done anything with the joint venture, is direct investment fund that they have,

because it's the first big deal i've seen lots of trees about how business is viewing that market right now? >> i don't know enough about what jeff is doing to be able to talk about that. i would say when it comes to russia, generally, i want to believe because i think it's good for the world if they start to come into the capitalist democratic fold. i think that's a good phenomenon for the world. but concern you still have to have is rule was still not complete established vendors to me, just still too many concerns when it comes to okay, is this really a place where you can have trust in the institution, getting back to the beginning of the discussion today. you have to be able to trust in institutions and that's something they need to evolve to. i think they're fully capable to do that but it has to happen. you just have to be able to try.

that if there is a dispute of some kind that it's going to get resolved peacefully, commercially, independently. you may disagree with the decision but at the end of the day you can trust that there was nothing corrupt that impacted in any way. i wouldn't say they're completely there yet. in the meantime we still viewed as a very good place to do business. we're going to continue to do business there ourselves, but i'm going to be careful about how i think about how does this dispute get halloween thing i have to do. >> thank you. "wall street journal" and david. i am chairman of a technology company, providing business intelligence as a service but i'm curious what your thoughts are about the immigration reform debate is currently happening in washington and the likelihood of the bill getting through.

>> i me, i was just down there a couple days ago period and would say it sounds promising they're going to do something. it will continue like everything down there with, people have been down there a lot of times the average you have to follow part three times before they actually get something done. but at the end of it feels like something is going to happen here. i'd like to think that gives us momentum when it comes to getting other things done like the debt. it was a gee, let's carry this forward momentum. when it comes to immigration, i know most of the deals are in favor of a. i am, too. but not just because it's good for our company a couple reasons that you on the high intellect people coming here. you just want the. odyssey why would ever want to turn not away. this prospect is somebody says they've got a great idea, they

are brilliant. they think the can make a billion dollars here. let them add it because if they make a billion, the country will get 20 out of it. something we ought to be encouraging. but i'm also in favor of canada's regular old immigration of the people who have the guts to want to come into the country to try to make a better life for themselves. i've likened it to oki, you get to the part at 7:00 am actually good. at 730 tonight, you shut the door to anybody else coming into the party. i never thought that was quite fair. if i look at my own fantasy become they came from québec and france in 1634 and than 100 or so years, walked across the border to take jobs in textile mills in the hampshire. i do think they registered with anybody on the way in. i'm not too hung up on -- [laughter] >> i was born here. my birth certificate is in good

shape. >> do you have a green card? >> i have a tough time saying no, you know. we're not going to do the same opportunity. by the same time we need population increase. if were going to address that social security make it a shot talking about, you need more people paying into the situation. the dynamism that can help to create if you have those kinds of people come into the country, people are willing to take a chance, i think that's a good thing for the country. >> yes, please. >> in the wilkinson, harvard university and the center for disease. my focus is on entrepreneurial leadership. my question is to follow up on your comments about the evolving. if the world is evolving 4% a year or the market goin is goinm 1 billion to 4 billion people, et cetera, what do you specifically do to evolve and encourage people inside your company to evolve? >> yeah, i spend a lot of time talking about this whole concept

of evolution. i talk about every place i can go. all the training classes, the town halls, i talk about it. it's our do my own appraisals with the own people. i will generally put all our conversation in that content to be able to say okay, we will have a "60 minutes" meeting. we can spend a minute of it with you telling us everything you did, that's great but we'll spend the next 59 talk about where you're going. you have to constantly be looking forward, recognizing that things are changed, things are evolving. i wouldn't say there's any like one thing you can do. it just have to be relentless. you have to constantly be talking about it making that point, not just at the person level but at the organization level. because there's too much of a tendency for people to be proud of what they did, which is good. we should have pride of that, but because of that, kind of forget, oh, there's more to

come. the world is still changing. technology is changing. and i need to change that way. it starts with me. i have to recognize that and keep thinking that way. one of the things i wondered even about myself when it first took this job. because up to this point you grew up in a big company, every two or three years you get a natural stingers to think differently because he's gotten a different job. so you're the change agent of your coming in and have to do that. when all of a sudden you look at anit and say i'm going to be ina job for 10 years, how do i make sure i keep doing that? it was one of the things i wondered about myself whether i could do it or not. it's worked out so happy to report that things worked out. i can do it. and i wondered about it myself. i think it's one the things you just have to causally be aware of. >> do you have some personal checks? did somebody go to to make sure you're getting the same message that you're delivering internally to your manager's?

>> do you mean about how i need to evolve? >> right. same pressure with a 10 years as you attempt to do that. >> first of all it's part of who i am which kind of those because i tend to be pretty curious. i like talking about and find about what he doing and what you seeing, what's happening. i travel a lot helps, over 100 countries and his job. came back from two weeks in issue. so i get a lot to talk to all kinds of different people. my board is a helpful and we have a very good board of people have run big stuff, which is i think important for board composition. so you get a lot of different looks of things. that helps. there's no one person that i look to. >> question? >> be kind, bob. be kind. >> first of all, congratulations on being selected ceo of the year and for representing the business community as well as

you do, as professional as you do. it means a lot to us out here. my question is, we've been given a second chance in this country, thanks to innovation. second chance to really get energy independence. could be one of the best job creators. why are we not moving more quickly than we are? why are we waiting 70, 100 days to make a decision? from your perspective both in business and washington relationships, why aren't women quicker probably one of those initiatives to help our country's? like to comment. first of all, thank you for the pointer making on being a spokesperson for business. because i do think since 2008,

the role of business in american society has been diaz one needs be regulated more. and while, okay, i'm not an anti-regulation guy. i understand there are minimum standards that need to be reached. at the end of the day there's and enabling function that government does also. i said many times that the american success story, you can look at it as most of that came from a business. is government in neighboring business and regulating it in the right way. you take a look at where poked a -- out of kitty came from, they came from business and government enabling. not an anti-regulation way. but by making sure that the fiscal house was in order, the kids are educated and people like me have an opportunity at a young age to be able to learn and do something, that we could infrastructure and all those

things our neighbors that government needs to do. one of the things that they could do to enable further is exactly what you said is energy policy. and we've had a lot of conversations about how women look at the debt problem, right now we look at it as is only two solutions. you raise taxes or you cut spending. there is a third possibility we keep introducing. it won't solve the whole problem but it certainly helps. and that's to really unleash the energy sector. if you start looking at the benefits to that come it's not just that consumers instead of having $4 gas would have to dollars gas can which is like getting a tax cut for them, and takes out some of the uncertainty. but it can also through 2020, a study said it as about a million jobs to the energy sector. and through 2035, add something like two and a half trillion dollars in government revenue. at the local, state, and federal

levels. so this is already going to be big. it could be even bigger if we had smarter, faster permitting. it doesn't mean let's just stop, fly through. it means get the decisions and quickly so the companies are whether to move out or not. you could have a even bigger impact than that. i would just go back, they've got to get through immigration. they've got to get through debt. right now with energy, if you just leave it alone that will be a good thing. just don't touch it too much. it's just part of the frustrations i think as a government and as a people we have forgotten the significant the business of the american success story and that we have forgotten how important is for government to enable business to be successful. >> is there a concern in your mind that natural gas, this

extraordinary discovery and private sector primary by leading a, the government get a lot of initial research on fracking. the private sector financed it and found a way to make it profitable. that this is a bridge to renewables, that it will just be an extension of our consumption of carbon with climate change concernconcerns the? >> first of all to your first point about how government has been if it. a lot of the private sector guys wouldn't say that's the case. so i don't know, i've never research so i don't know where the truth is there. in terms of how does that let us evolve too, we'll say a carbon free society, just like give us a buy for 20 years or so. i don't think either side really knows. and too often i see government where's the perfect of the enemy of the good. right now we've got something really good at a time when we are in trouble and need

something really good. so i would say rather than say i'm going to wait for it to be perfect i think we ought to grab what we have and continue evolving, and we will because the pressure is not going to let up on that. we've got to grab what we have, kind of worker way through the problems we have right now. >> thanks very much for this. i know that you've been and an acquisitive mode unless you to i could have notice -- i'm just wondering is there any interest in this company? >> you might have noticed up in the england they are just based on, the cost of the are. if you're in new england you -- i'm. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> lawmakers returned to capitol hill today with both chambers gabbling into session at 2 p.m. eastern following their fourth of july recess. the house works this week on

bills to fund energy and water projects for fiscal year 2014. the senate votes on judicial nomination for the 10th circuit court of appeals. members this week also expected to work on 2014 federal spending bills but they have not announced which ones they will consider. the senate takes up legislation to address the doubling of interest rates on federally subsidized student loans which took effect last week. watch the senate live here on c-span2 lighthouse coverage over on c-span. >> with congress back today we also have live coverage looking at the impact of 2010 health care law will have on medicaid being on january 1. the program will be expanded to include an additional 7 million people. watch live coverage at 4 p.m. eastern over on c-span3. stand on c-span3 we will also live remarks from former cia

director will be talking about how u.s. depends on foreign and domestic oil affects our national security. posted at johns hopkins school of advanced international studies, live coverage is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. eastern. >> no man need a strong partner, an honest partner more than the american president, sheltered and cocooned as he is and what harry truman called the great white prison. so that's what i concluded after five years and hundreds of interviews, that those presidents with brave sponsors willing to speak sometimes hard truths that others are unwilling to speak to the big guy, those presidents have a distinct advantage. let me give you an example. had at nixon be able to cut through her husband's paranoia water gate might have been avoided but pat had long since given up on her husband by the time they reached the white house.

they were leaving virtually separate lives as you'll see in my portrayal of the saddest of all presidential couples. i don't give my husband advice, pat was quoted as saying, because he didn't need. well, is there a man or woman alive who doesn't need advice from the person who knows him or her best? >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies, author kati marton talks about presidential marriages and other first ladies have helped to shape american history. tonight at nine eastern on c-span. >> next, a discussion about computer hacking and information activism the panelists include the founder of the new york city muslim defense project and a large thin and political activist accused of hacking into private intelligence files. from last month annual left forum at pace university in new york city, this is just under two hours. >> truly a preeminent if not the preeminent scholar on these topics. her first book, "coding freedom

the ethics and aesthetics of hacking" is published by princeton university as is available on paperback. she's got it working on a new book on anonymous and digital media. for more information i suggest go to our website, gabriella coleman.org or choose a specific speaker invited to you can find a lot of her stuff to a truly amazing. will potter is another prolific an amazing writer. is an award-winning journalist, author, and public speaker based in washington, d.c. and he's become a leading authority on the animal rights and environmental movement. you can find his writing in outlets such as rolling stone, "mother jones," the "los angeles times," the vermont law review, the "washington post." is often on tv and radio including npr, pacifica, and democracy now. i suggest being a recent debate

that will have with animal industry pr person and that was really great. i think he won. his book, green is the new red which is also the title of this excellent blog provides the post-9/11 assault on animal rights and environmental envirol movements. and the use of terrorism law to label and prosecute activists charisma and last but not least grainne o'neill is an attorney on the defense team for activists chairman henry. she received her jd from columbia law entered ba in mathematics and computer science from cornell. prior to joining the hammond legal team, grainne served as attorney out the institute at harvard law school where she directed the institute of duty and project to create computer resources for defense attorneys nationwide. before that grainne was a public

defender in new orleans which eventually became director of the legal systems and technolo technology, where she developed new tools to enhance the performance of her fellow attorneys. so a round of applause for these amazing panelists. [applause] >> and the going to start off with like an introduction about 10 minutes or so, kind of about laying the framework for what is information activism and why information is important to democracy. so, to start off, i think this is really an excellent corporate this is thomas jefferson. and i think this is really, this quote really lives up to the important points i think, that information is necessary, is the necessary fuel for the democratic fire. and the mechanism that was used

for this in the founding period really was both the separation of powers but also within the bill of rights embodied in the first amendment, the freedom of the press. the freedom of the press is the mechanism that allows information to be disseminated to the public but i think it's important when we talk about what the freedom of the press means, that all of these founding fathers were members of the press as well. the press during this period, during the founding period, was not a corporate money press. it was a political, vibrant, independent press. when the constitution says freedom of the press, it also means the freedom to speak anonymously as well as all these people use of various pseudonyms. and it was normal within

political discourse to speak anonymously. that's something that's kind of in lost lost i think that our concept of free press, but since these guys were the first anon. i was talking about the information, how does information flow within its checks and balances? i'm representing your information with these blue arrows as the constitutional system requires a flow of information between the branches of government. the government can't work when that information flow is disrupted. the common term of the fourth estate is the press that would ask as this mediator for information between the public back and forth and our government. i would be remiss if i didn't

add another element. there's not really particularly, it's not really explicitly complicated within our constitutional framework, which is the corporation. especially during, at the beginning of the founding of the country. the corporation for a body of government. it's something that came out of government, so any information that corporations provide or are forced to provide is a result of law. a corporation is a legal fixed. so, this is a trend we've seen over the past few years, not years, maybe 60, 7 70 or especially, which is an expansion of the executive branch of government. and really and increasing opec is to that branch really taking over the other branches of government. and restricting the flow of

information from all branches of government and often aided by the other branches of government. a few examples of this, this is the number of doctrines that have been declassified started in 1980. you can see, you can see the trend. especially when compared to over a similar period of time this is the number of classifications, of documents that have been classified. and you can see this spike which is really the creation of a whole separate internet really. like it's the world's largest dark net, which is a government contractor, you know, semi private, public-private arrangement where massive and massive amounts of information is being shared. i think, the last figures i saw was about 5 million, 5 million

people, contractors and government officials had access to this classified world. so back to our diagram. the executive has gotten larger and more opec. and at the same time -- opaque. the corporate sector has gotten larger. and really i don't think this is adequate. what we've really seen in the world of government information is kind of a merging of the corporation and government and a large part of the press, which is what unclever like a better term the corporate which involves the military and it is complex, and all these forms of national security. and the press is a huge part of that. so we have seen, we've seen the corporate press enmeshed within the system. so we've gone from a corporate

press from the heyday of the corporate press of edward r. murrow taking on real power in terms of taking on mccarthyism. we see the iran-contra scandal. the my lai massacre that had a real effect on public debate and public thought about the war whereas i think the massacres today are kind of largely ignored. where we've seen the corporate press where we are today we're largely active propagandist for war. i don't think anyone embodies this better than thomas friedman in terms of the vacuous war mongering nature of the corporate media. so here we have the number of corporations that control the media over this in the period of

time that we're talking about i think tells that story in another way. so we have this corporate state. we have small amounts of information being through actual meter graph large amounts of propaganda coming through the media. and at the same time we have a huge amount of information coming from the public into the hole, into the blackbox of the corporate state. i don't think anyone, i don't think anyone embodies this more than michael bloomberg, who orchestrated massive spying campaigns. before this weeks massive spying campaigns he was a master of masters by campaigns by the new york city muslim community. and he says of course that this type of spying is inevitable. to put it simply, we see a massive increase in corporate and government secrecy, and a massive decrease in individual

privacy. and really after the nfa revelation of this last week i would say we are about here. so this take it on the corporate state? has there been -- were are the successes? what are the mechanisms in the way information has come out? i can a broad outline for categories of people who have done. what i say journalists i don't mean the people on tv. i'm not talking about brian williams. i'm talking about the will potter's of the world, people who are actually taking on power. people who are not within the power system, but are trying to take it on. and so journalists, leakers, activists and hackers. i'm just going to go through kind of a few examples of the corporate state's response to people within these categories. here we have journalists, a few examples.

famously recently james rosen, not an independent journalist, was investigated. wheatley's founder julian assange and barrett brown who started this project at the national security complex and the private public workings of that has been set up in a really bad situation by the fbi, facing 100 years worth of charges, and denied bail in a jail in texas right now. so we see leakers, the nfa leaker, bradley manning. these are all people who exposed government illegality, government wrongdoing. you know, the torture program. the nfa people, millions of

dollars wasted on these private partnerships that really just funneled money into private hands for useless projects, exposing war crimes. they have been treated accordingly, serving jail time. bradley manning facing a death sentence but the protesters say they will not pursue a death sentence. and the nsa whistleblowers all lifelong career nsa people fired and held at gunpoint, their homes rated, their careers ruined. here's another category of activists that will is an expert on. these are all animal rights and environmental rights activists who have been, who have been actually very effective at the work. the shack seven, stop hunting and animal cruelty. it wasn't animal testing company

that, there's a huge campaign against them and very successful at damaging his company's credibility. and its bottom line which is an effort to stop the practices. the phenomenon that we see here is terrorism prosecutions used against these people. so knowing are actually harmed or intended to harm any person. these are animal-rights activists, they're not hurting other people or animals but nonetheless they have been treated as a terrorist. marie mason serving a 20 year sentence. the shack seven labeled terrorist. the shack seven rent a website. that was their crime. finally we see, this is to examples of some more famous hacking groups. that paypal 14 after the leaky weeks -- wikileaks, they were accused of -- similar to like us

civil disobedience activity we request a website over and over and attempt to slow down or stop it temporarily. and they've all been indicted with federal charges. lulzsec is a group of similar to the. brown case is advocate with lulzsec but the main hacking charges for breaking into the company, extracting documents, and releasing them through wikileaks. the documents, if doj was so inclined, revealed loss of possibly, probably illegal activity, spying on activists, bribing foreign officials. and these are the kind of things that were exposed, but the government has chosen to prosecute these people who exposed it rather than the corporate malfeasance. so i'm going to close, and open it up for gabriella next but i

just want to end with this slide, that i think is a really telling story that this is a painting by george w. bush of himself, that was released by a hacker. you know, i think that just tells a story, i think this tells an interesting story because when contrasted to what george bush wants you to think of them as, this is the world that we, like, what is reality? what is the world we want to live in? the world where power projects itself, or the world, the real world, right? where power is exposed. and so with that i want to welcome gabriella coleman. [applause] >> so, i would just open by

thinking you for putting this panel together but it's great to be here. and also for those, i recognize a few people in the audience who saw my talk i gave a few days ago. it's similar but longer. there's added valley. i just wanted to mention that. and when going to do today actually is, the first half, give a bit of background on anonymous because there's quite a bit of misinformation about them. and i sure was interesting about them is that their domain where hackers are important but they are much more open than that. they really integrate participants from many different backgrounds and that's one of the reasons why they've grown so much. then talk a little bit about why they are so important and why they are so distinctive at some level. i think that's important because as grainne will get to, the kind of crackdown against them, really is a crackdown against

the rise of civil disobedience online. it's in its early history. and so the legal crackdown really didn't have an effect. so i'm just going to start now. all right, so here is -- you can see all my slides. sorry. so here's a question about an easy answer. who is anonymous? even after four years of research, i still struggle for an adequate answer. since 2008, different groups of hackers, technologists and geeks have organized very different groups using this name. participants have taken on very diverse causes from rape cases to leaking, but they really rally most around censorship and privacy.

sorry, this is -- okay. one thing that is certain to anonymous is tailor-made for the news. it's widely action such as hacking are distributed to campaigns really fit into the media's appetite for the sensational. outfits like wired and slate get most right about anonymous but i want to correct two of the most common misconceptions about them. many journalists portray them not only as hackers, so many are not, but it's something like that many badgers of activism. for those that may not know, the honey badger is a fearsome feral animal. it is frightening and fascinating, incredibly brave, and incredibly stupid. apparently connecting even repelled lions. go after honey bees and snakes. and basically -- th these slides are just going -- hold on.

>> that should work. hopefully that will fix the problem. so, the honey badger is frightening, fascinating, incredibly brave but incredibly stupid. like the narrative goes, these hackers like the honey badger just don't give a shit. given this characterization, there's a second move that journalists make. they are quite shocked when actions seem more mature. so it is for this very reason that -- okay, hold on. this thing, it's possessed. [laughter] >> let's see if this -- so it's for this reason that i've been asked over 20 times about anonymous transition from puberty into adulthood. so basically every time they do an operation that seems more

mature, that journalists are like oh, my gosh, they are maturing, they're going into adulthood. fair enough, the very first of anonymous can perhaps be located as a time of transition. because for those that may not know, prior to the name being used for activism, the name anonymous was used primarily for internet trolling and breaking, for what anonymous called internet mother -- i don't know how to stop this. you know -- okay. it's not my computer. hopefully that will do it. so they basically were named used by internet trolls to go on these drinking campaigns. and in 2008, they went on a trolling campaign against the church of scientology, and

through a very kind of compensated set of reasons, they decided to kind of earnestly protest the church of scientology. and a kind of political movement was born. [inaudible] >> or we could stop it. it still goes. sorry about this. let me try one more thing. there's a setting where it -- keynote? let's load up on keynote that should work. sorry about this.

it should work. [inaudible]. ..

>> all right. so, basically, there's this narrative, everyone sort of thinks they're immature, so when anonymous got involved in tunisia, when they got involved in occupy, when they got involved in rape cases, journalists were like, oh, my gosh, they're maturing, they're maturing, they're maturing, over and over and over again. but really this is not a good way to understand anonymous because in some ways, um, you know,er reverence is part of --er ref answer is part of what they do. and if we're going to identify the honey badgers of anonymous, that title could be reserved for

a breakaway group from anonymous who had to break away because initially there was no rhyme or reason to their hacks. they went on a 50-day hacking spree, and it did reveal a lot of important information, but it's certainly the case that they had to break away because anonymous had, in fact, developed a political culture where they basically got triggered into action for reasons. now, it was still very important because it inspired hackers to kind of continue hacking in this vein, and a lot of the individuals involved got involved with a group called antisec. but it's best to remember that anonymous was born from the lull's internet jargon for deviant humor and that this lull is still important to what they do. so operations are earnest, but if an opportunity a arises, someone still might induce a

lull. anonymous was spurred into action when san francisco bay area rapid transit sought to shut down phone reception to thwart anti-police brutality protests. so they organized street demonstrations. a couple of individuals also hacked into bart's computers, and then someone found a semi-nude official of bart's official spokesperson and republished it on the web site with this rationalization: if you're going to be a dick to the public, then i'm sure you don't mind showing your dick to the public. [laughter] so the point is anonymous has toned down the lulls, the deviant humor, the trolling significantly, but deviance and humor remain a feature to its political culture. so who is anonymous may be hard to answer, but what anonymous is may not be. anonymous is best viewed as an insurgent protest ensemble. it has become the face of

popular unrest across the globe from the streets of pain to the streets of turkey more recently, and even they showed up in the parliament chambers when polish parliamentarians took on the mass to protest a copyright statute. anonymous is very unique in its kind of bombast and unpredictability, but it's also part of a broader ecosystem which i call weapons of the geek. an increasing number of hackers and geeks are taking political matters into their own hands. now, you know, hackers, you know, they seem to be everywhere, but they're really misunderstood, and i think there's many things i can say to clear up the misunderstandings, but the one thing i want to say is that they're not all libertarian basement dwellers, basically. there's this idea that they're all libertarian and live in their mothers' basements. sure, those exist, but really it's actually a very, very

diverse group of individuals who exist all over the world, and their political interventions -- here i'm talking about non-anonymous hackers and geeks -- have intervened in a remarkable number of ways. for example, hackers have reinvented the law. those that oppose copyright have created the copy left to free information. other hackers have built tools like pretty good privacy in tor to prevent from corporate snooping, and there's dozens of other examples which come to mind from pirate parties to even policy geeks educating politicians in d.c. within this emerging digital environmentalism, anonymous specializes in acts of disobedience, defiance and protests. they're particularly good at three things. the first is they're very, very good at amplifying existing causes. in this way they're very event-driven and reactive which is what makes them so unpredictable.

because the world is unpredictable, so they're unpredictable. and hacking and leaking are two proactive exceptions to these. they're really good at boosting, um, existing oppositional social movements whether it's in turkey or occupy or the arab spring. they often become a really important pr wing. and the one that i think is most interesting is when they convert amorphous discontent into tangible form. and they did this really well when a bunch of companies stopped accepting donations for wikileaks; visa, paypal, mastercard. and a bunch of people then joined in with anonymous to de-dos these web sites. people knew there was a problem, all of a sudden it became an action. so let me just now really hone in about what makes them distinctive, and sorry about the slides. they're just -- i'm fighting with them as i'm giving the

talk. so anonymous has taught us that the internet will judge, often quite swiftly, the actions of individuals, corporations and governments. to do so, they often exploit a feature of our collective digital predicament. corporations and governments have collected and stored such a vast sea of digital data that whether it's accessed illegally or legally, once it's released into the world it's almost impossible to contain and sequester. adept at publicity, anonymous can create a pr nightmare for its targets, injecting issues with suspension, drama and intrigue. their hollywood aesthetics make them on the one hand familiar, their mystery keeps the media's bottomless appetite for the sensational very well fed. now, what's also interesting is although anonymous is very, very good at ruining reputations, they're already so notorious it's difficult to smear theirs. they don't need to ca vogue doe

nors, and without a master plan, it gives them experimental freedom in thought and action. so caseally they've been branded terrorists, but so far this damaging label has not stuck. so why have they grown so rapidly? there are many reasons, but i'm just going to highlight a few. they're the quintessential anti-brand brand, allowing the idea and name to be taken by anyone. they're also really far more open and accessible compared to other spheres of purely hacker activity. so hackers are essential. they maintain the communication infrastructure, expose weak security, hunt for information to leak and nab a majority of the headlines. however, anyone can join simply by saying so. but this is an important point, most people actually join existing groups or networks of which there's simultaneous ones in existence. i think there's often this idea that they kind of exist out in the ether or something where, in

fact, you can go and find them and talk to them before you'd hike to. nonhackers write communiques, give interviews on chat channels, they design posters, edit videos. organizers are particularly important. they advise, inspire, corral and broker between groups to form ad hoc teams. now, anonymous' beauty and frustration lies in its openness, its flexibility and spontaneity. they are difficult to predict, much less govern. and this is good because it prevents its assimilation and neutralization by institutional actors including political groups. as they like to boast, we're not your personal army. you know, there is the question as to whether their actions can be counterproductive, and there have been some critiques leveled against anonymous because their like, oh, their actions are going to be used to pass repressive laws that curtail civil liberties. of course, this is a ridiculous

argument insofar as those civil liberties have already been so curtailed and so eroded that, you know, if they didn't exist, haven't existed, if they vanished tomorrow, we'd still be in the same boat we are today which is a frightening, frightening, sinking boat of privacy. [laughter] and so i just think, you know, anonymous has to be seen as a reaction to and not a primary simplistic cause of this trend. and, in fact, why they're so important is because they're probably one of the most accessible training grounds for radical activists in europe, north america and latin america today. and this is really important. they're kind of like a factory generating a bunch of activists. by participating in anonymous, individuals become part of something larger than themselves, and i've collected many kind of narratives of individuals who got involved either as seasoned activists or as first-time activists. and one of my favorites is, um, a video editor who's made over

90 videos for anonymous, and he recently made a video for operation guantanamo that was really incredible. i'll pass the link around if i can at some point. but he just graduated from high school in may, right? so it's a really good kind of indication of the way that anonymous acts as this training ground. second, pseudoanonymity is a really interesting feature to anonymous' political culture. the first thing i want to emphasize is that it actually has secured considerable diversity among those who participate. and that's because you don't, you're not identified as a leftist or being of a certain class, and so what it has allowed for is a really odd conglomeration of people. there's wealthy engineers, high school students, ph.d. students, queer-nons, buddhists,

addicts, political affiliations vary considerably from anti-capitalist left to no politics to social democrats. when you hide yourself and your background, weird connections and concoctions arise. and i do find this really fascinating and an important part. but on the flip side, there is a tension that arises especially among those that break the law or those that kind of cavort with the law breakers. you may initially hide the self, but once you engage in any prolonged and meaningful action, you crave to share the self, your passions, your pain, desires and dreams. many anons become friends, many agonize over the fact they can't become friends, and many still do when they probably should not. and i think this picture just captures that. one anon who's a hacker captured the conundrum in the following

way when he was chatting with me. he said: >> so he's kind of, like, confessig to me both like what makes it so hard and what is also really great about anonymous, is you can reinvent yourself. yet on the other hand, you really can't reach out to others and trust others. and, in fact, some of the downfalls of some of the individuals and hackers came at the heels of them revealing too much information about themselves. so there's really interesting dynamics to the pseudoanonymity and anonymity of anonymous. now, what i'd like to kind of mention as a transition is that independent of the sociological dynamics, there's really, really important ethical dynamics when it comes to their commitment to

anonymity. and the concept, which is heralded in name, iconography and deeds, shapes multiple ethical vocabularies. and this is really important because i don't think there's many spaces where the ethic for anonymity is thriving in a kind of cultural sense, and this is where it's thriving. while anonymous can't be pigeon holed into a single political position, there's remarkable ethical consistency to their actions. there's a collective prohibition to seek fame and attention. many are committed to the sentiment that truth flows a bit more freely under the veil of anonymity, captured in this oscar wilde quote. man is least himself when he talks in his own person. give him a mask, and he'll tell you the truth. but masking in anonymous is certainly not always a road for truth to travel on. hiding and concealing can also be a about -- and this is a quote -- the right not to understand, the right to confuse, to tease, the right to parody others, the right not to

be taken literally, the right to live a life in the yachtly call space as literary theorists put so well. finally, anonymous through deeds and especially through symbols dramatize the importance of anonymity and privacy in an era where both are rapidly eroding. so there's all these different levels at which privacy and anonymity are kind of preferred ethically. now, the final point about why they're so interesting and important is that even though anonymous is often misunderstood, they're often reviled by some, they're not totally marginalized and delegitimated in the way that a lot of radical movements are. and why this is so is a very kind of complicated story. but there's a few issues that are worth highlighting. first of all, they're unpredictable and, again, this keeps people like enamored with them. and also they're effective in many ways. they're effective at getting

attention, inspiring others to join in, leaking important information and changing the outcome in many of the cases that they get involved in such as the rape cases that they got involved in recently. so their unpredictability, their kind of media savviness as well as, you know, some tangible outcomes make them harder to kind of delegitimate in the way that many radical movements are. so that's all i want to say, and let me just conclude. a few final thoughts. anonymous may not be the best recipe for democracy. it lacks transparency largely because of its illegal tactics. their sociology is labyrinth yang. misinformation abounds. at times a few operations do creep close to vigilantism. anonymous, however, has revealed limits to democracy. while it has not proposed a plan to topple institution or change unjust laws, it's made evading

them seem desirable, even plausible. anonymous has enabled action for some of the time when many feel that existing channels are either beyond their reach or too corrupt. in explaining why he joined the more militant wing of anonymous, one court organizer told me: i was sold on the raids, the de-dosing, the black faxes because i'd been an activist for four or five years, and i'd just experienced once vested interests have made a government decision, lobbying by ordinary people won't get it changed back without scaring them a little. we should, of course, worry gravely about the future of this type of digitally-based dissent, especially in the united states. as we saw with aaron schwartz who was a hacker who committed suicide as he was in the middle of a really horrible legal proceeding over downloading journal articles facing many, many years in jail and as we're seeing with jeremy hammond who was a key, key hacker in

antisec, one of these groups who were really leaking or seeking to hack to leak information, we're going to see how the computer fraud and abuse act can be wielded as a blunt legal tool by prosecutors unwilling to differentiate between principled action and criminal activity. so offline civil disobedience such as trespassing is treated as a political act while similar behaviors online are treated as purely criminal activity. and if the jail time doesn't kind of crush your soul, the fines may ruin you financially. so given the internet's prominence in every aspect of our daily lives, citizens should not be discouraged from developing their political will online. in order for the internet to further and sustain democratic life, our laws must recognize and accommodate various modalities of digital dissent from campaigning to civil disobedience. so i'll just end with that and turn it over to our next speaker. [applause]

>> so i don't have a powerpoint for all of you, but my name is grainne o'neil, and i am going to talk a little bit about the law and how it's intersecting with the fifth state. so i first want to talk a little bit about what abi was talking about earlier which was how what we're seeing in trends is that there's increasing government surveillance of us, people, and there's increasing corporate surveillance of us. and at the same time, people who are exposing this are being more and more heavily prosecuted. and i think that that point can't be underscored enough, so just wanted to talk about that. and how, how people are being prosecuted is that the government is using this law called the cfaa, the computer fraud and abuse act. it was kind of unbelievably written in 1984, and -- which,

you know, is ironic for all the reasons why you'd imagine, and also if you think about it, it was written at a time before there were really computers the same way there are today. the law is incredibly broad. it's frightening really. almost anyone that touches a computer could be prosecuted under this law. so whenever you come to a new web site, a facebook page, myspace account and you tick a little terms of service agreement that's 45 pages long that you didn't read and you don't obey those exact terms that, again, you probably have no idea what they are, you're in violation of the computer fraud and abuse act, and you face fife years in -- five years in prison for that. if you made a myspace account for your dog, if you share a netflix password, if you look at your friend's hbo go account, you're violating the computer fraud and abuse act, and you

face five years for every time that you've done that. so any of us could probably be prosecuted under this act, and we're not. and who is prosecuted under the cfaa? and we're seeing more and more that the government is using the cfaa to prosecute whistleblowers, activists, hackers. it's being used as a political weapon against this, against information activists. my client, who i represent, jeremy hammond, is a hacker, and he has pled guilty to hacking a private spying company that was spying on paul activists, it was spying on the yes men, and it was spying on wall street at the behest of the department of justice. the information that was leaked through his hacking, it's incredible. it's still being trickled out through wikileaks, and the

government hasn't investigated any of this malfeasance. it hasn't investigated any of these abridgments of our rights as citizens to engage in civil defense -- civic defense and, you know, what happened was that when he was arrested, he was charged with many different counts of violations of the cfaa, and he was looking at 180 years in prison, and can he was, he pled guilty to this one count, and now he faces between 0 and 10 years in prison. it's up to the judge's discretion. and, um, so it's very serious. his actions were political. they were aimed at exposing malfeasance. and we also saw which was talked about earlier with aaron schwartz. aaron schwartz was arrested for

downloading journal articles. aaron schwartz was a student, and like many of us students, we have access to j store, and he had access to j store through his university, and he was accused of downloading too many articles on j store. so, again, he ticked the box in the terms of service agreement, and he didn't abide by them. and for that he was facing decades in prison. the government, it seems like the government was very upis the about his politics -- upset about his politics of open acts of information, about his prior work downloading information from pacer which is a web site that the government runs that has all of our court proceedings on it. we obviously have a public court system, and we're supposed to be entitled to look at all of the documents that are in that court system. in reality, we are charged, each of us, six cents per page to look at court documents. this doesn't make any sense in the digital age. it couldn't possibly cost the government six cents a page to give them to us, so aaron was

accused of downloading them with the intent to publish them, make them freely available to everyone. that and his work on stopping sopa which was a new act which was going to further criminalize information on the internet, he was very successful at this. and so it seems like they really threw the book at him for this violation of the j store terms of service agreement. and most recently bielra also mentioned the steubenville rapists. and what happened with that was in a football town these young men committed a really heinous gang rape of a young woman, and unbelievably they tweeted the entire thing. they sort of as it happened tweeted it, what they were doing, and in the town, the town police, the stays police, nobody prosecuted them. all the information was there.

and so anonymous, a part of anonymous, exposed all of this. and they made the town, the state, the prosecutors, the government, the police look really bad. they made them look like they hadn't done their job. and two of the men who participated in this gang rape received, i think, one or two years in prison, and just last week they arrested one of the people who they are accusing of exposing this information. and he is probably -- they didn't arrest him, they searched his home. and if they proceed with the indictment, he'll probably be facing decades in prison for exposing this. so these are the kinds of things that are now being done. i think contrary to kind of what biella said is i don't agree that they're not looking at these as political crimes. so i think that they are definitely looking at these actions as political and prosecuting them at a higher

standard. so what you see if someone commits similar crimes, hacks into a computer, downloads credit card information, sells it on the black market, they're receiving a year in prison, two years in prison. if they do the same thing with a political motivation, we're seeing, you know, these compounded charges, facing decades in prison, and it's just a very different scenario. and, um, and so instead of providing protection for speech and political speech which is, obviously, in many our constitution, supposed to be held to the highest standard, they're further criminalizing it. and so i guess, you know, this is all very scary, and i just want to close with sort of some things that i think you can do to help. all of these people who are being prosecuted, a lot of them have defense web sites, defense committee web sites. so barrett brown does who abi mentioned earlier, jeremy hammond does, and you can look on there to see what the people supporting the case are doing to

try to help them. but i think even more importantly we have a little bit of power still. and some of that power is that this is our country, but these are also our computers. so how many of us are using google to store all of our e-mail and allowing corporations to give that information to the nsa, as we saw? how many of us are not encrypting our e-mail? how many of us are not searching the internet securely using, tor or similar tools? we have a responsibility as citizens or as people in the united states to try to use some of these tools to protect ourself toes and to protect our fellow activists. we don't, we may not be sharing anything that's of note to the government, but why are we sharing it at all? why are we giving that to google, and why are we updating facebook with all of our activities? i think i would look into encrypted e-mail, off the record chatting and tor to make as part of your daily tools, and i guess

that's all, so thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you all so much for coming. i know there's a lot of events going on that are competing for your time and attention, so thank you so much for being here, and thanks to abi and the guild for organizing this and setting up such a great panel that really couldn't be more timely. i'm trying to talk as i do this to not make it awkward. [laughter] as abi was saying with the greenwald stories that broke just a few days ago, these topics couldn't be any more relevant. so -- it worked.

so as abi was saying, my work seems very narrowly focused on how animal rights and environmental activists became, according to the fbi, the number one domestic terrorism threat. and really the arc that i trace in my book which i go into really an in-depth account of how all this happened is beginning with the creation of a new word called ecoterrorism in the early 1980s. long before any of this stuff we're talking about, long before september 11th. that was created by a corporation specifically for this purpose of demonizing their opposition. and, of course, with september 11th this took on a much greater power, this power of language and using this rhetoric became a vastly different type of tool than it was leading up to that. and now with the, you know, expansion and our overreliance on the internet and web technology, that's shifted once again. but the purpose of my talk today is to focus on something when i

ban began researching these issues and reporting on them in 2000, i never would have thought possible. the rhetoric at that time was all about illegal underground groups like the animal liberation front and earth liberation front and to a lesser extent earth first that have done things like release animals from laboratory, burn down suvs, break into facilities and take photo and video documentation and steal all the animals. it was this kind of rhetoric of the radical underground, these illegal criminal terrorists that had to be cracked down on, right? that was the message from corporations and the government. what we're seeing now is a complete shift from those illegal underground, anonymous groups to mainstream, above ground, lawful nonprofits. and i think everything i'm going to be talking about today especially on this panel needs to be seen in that context of how much has changed in the last 20, 25 years and where this is heading. specifically, i'm going to focus

on a series of new bills and laws now that have been introduced around the country called ag-gag legislation. now, in the last few years there have been a series of damning undercover investigations by groups like the humane society, mercy for animals and compassion over killing that have really rocked the agricultural industry. they've exposed heinous abuses and illegal activity, but they've also exposed standard industry practices. they've led to the largest meat recall in u.s. history. in this case, the slaughterhouse was taking sick cows, cows that were too sick to even walk, moving them with bulldozers with the hope of getting that last bit of money out of these sick animals. those cows were being turned into meat and being fed to children as part of the national school lunch program. that's illegal, it's also very dangerous abuse of this industry in terms of consumer health violations. led to the largest meat rec